Posted on 01/08/2005 7:29:26 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
I stand corrected! ;)
Anyone else view the "Invisible Suit" video clip from their website? It shows the invisible suit on broadcasts from two stations, Channel 8 and Channel 10.
I have dial-up....dial-up sucks.I could probably see it, but it would take an hour or so to download.
WOW! Check out the clips in the middle, with the way the TV channel covered the incident. I love the way say *CLAIMED* they were a media watchdog group," with that sarcastic smirk from the one, and the implications.
and "after a *LENGTHY* detainment"...
They use "claim" over and over. And they directly make the assertion that they turned out to be nothing more than pranksters. I guess their lawyers told them they could lie about the things without fear of a slander suit, or they made a guess that the protestors didn't want their identities released.
I urge any detractors to check out the site and watch the videos. Note that I have no association with this group whatsoever (yet...lol).
What you describe is technically assault. Only a battery requires contact. That's the way it was in common law, and that's the common legal understanding of the distinction between the two words.
They would probably have to have access to the news budgets (stories for the day etc.)
That would require someone on the inside.
Of course, it is also rather obvious that some events will be covered, such as fires etc.
This story is one that was an obvious one.....no real question that it would be covered.
You've made that more than clear. It may take you awhile to get there.
I saw the video.
Frankly, I don't think it is right for these guys to interrupt a broadcast like this.
There's actually a Federal law against this. A couple of kids here in Charlotte a few years ago targeted a weatherman who always steps outside to "see" the weather and to report on it. The weatherman was telling us it was clear outside, when they pelted him with a waterballoon.
Well, the next day the FBI arrested the teens for interfearing with a federally licensed broadcast.
I support stuff like that, but not just flat preventing the reporter from giving the public information.
Walking up to a person is assault?
Maybe illegal but very funny.
No, although I miswrote what I intended, it was not assault either (though IANAL). No reasonable person would fear bodily harm was intended from asking a question with a microphone in hand held in a non-threatening manner. If so, then the group they were protesting commits assault quite regularly.
Behavior which would lead a reasonable person to fear they are in imminent danger of unwanted physical contact is an assault (if I remember my criminal law correctly from law school). Battery is actual physical contact.
Thus, if I walk up to you, and throw my fist within a few inches of your face (while yelling 'Psych!'), I have assaulted you. If I make contact, it is battery.
And that's exactly what they are protesting...the Federal control of what is supposed to be commonly owned airwaves. Hmmm...
Have you watched the video? Even as she moves away, he doesn't move toward her. If it was assault, why'd they release him without the threat of a charge of simple assault later?
Whoa there, chief. I'm only pointing out that a charge of assault does not require contact. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
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.