Posted on 04/10/2015 12:33:57 PM PDT by wagglebee
There might be one that has been categorically ignored for years except for use as part of a broader criminal investigation.
Shows like 60 Minutes and 20-20 routinely have segments where they secretly record phone calls with businesses, so do nearly all local news shows.
Moreover, the fact that the bakery owner REPOSTED the video is pretty much de facto consent to the recording.
How dare Mr. Feuerstein try to engage in the typical double standard of the left? Doesn’t he know that is only available for queers and other liberals?
Truly we conservatives are held to one higher standard while the mentally deranged leftists are free to engage in cheating, lying, deceit and hypocracy.
Didn’t she commit the same crime when she posted his video???????
There’s nothing I saw in the article to confirm that he did, in fact, violate the law. In many states, one party’s knowledge of the recording makes it legal. Perhaps Florida law does too. This “journalist” didn’t bother to provide that information.
Here is the Colorado law for consent to record conversations:
Colorado
Recording or intercepting a telephone conversation, or any electronic communication, without the consent of at least one party to the conversation is a felony punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $100,000 and one year to 18 months in jail. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303. Recording a communication from a cordless telephone, however, is a misdemeanor. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401. Using or disclosing information obtained through illegal wiretapping is a felony, if there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally. Colo. Rev. Stat § 18-9-304.
However, nothing in these statutes “shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.
Additionally, a person may use wiretapping or eavesdropping devices on his own premises for security or business purposes, if reasonable notice of the use of such devices is given to the public. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.
The baker clearly has no legal claim.
I smell a false flag.
You mean the fags and leftest have been reading the koran?
What a novel idea.
According to that great sage Hiram King Williams (Sr.), if you mind your own business you’ll stay busy all the time.
I just noticed that there’s also no indication of his location when he made the call. Interstate calls may be subject to federal rather than either state’s laws.
Way too late. Unfortunately.
Except this bakery is in Florida.
She(bakery owner) can try to sue...but since she then took the recording and reposted publically after it was taken down(thereby increasing the chances of harassment by her own actions)...she is tacitly “agreeing” to the recording by airing it publically. She should have consulted a lawyer first before reposting the recording!
It’s true he set himself up...but when he took the recording down and the bakery owner put the recording back up...the bakery owner is signaling tacit approval of the recording by airing it publically. This case is over before it starts!
That may not be the case. In this instance http://www.schiffhardin.com/File%20Library/Publications%20%28File%20Based%29/HTML/lit_080106index.html California state law was held to be applicable, and not federal or Georgia’s laws.
If the call originated in Colorado, then the caller is pretty safe, although there are some cases that have allowed the person who was called to claim the protection of their state’s statute. The decisions go both ways, just like this baker, so it depends on Florida law and what judge hears it.
In Colorado, yes.
I find it amusing that people still think the law matters. All that matters is being on the side of the elites. Nothing else matters. Nothing.
No, those laws are not categorically denied. Shows like 60 Minutes and 20-20 routinely have secret recordings, yes, but they are careful to do so only in states that permit such recordings (”one-party consent” states). Florida is a “two-party consent” state, meaning that both parties to a conversation must consent to the recording of the conversation. News agencies are well versed in what they can and cannot do in various states; activists like this guy ought to get themselves caught up as well.
Hell hath no fury like a bitchy little faggot scorned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.