Posted on 07/29/2015 7:13:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ah… Thank you for the clarification.
Well said and correct.
If we decide to ignore the law, we’re no better than illegal aliens, Obama and Democrats.
[[In a statement released today, GenocideExpress stated that they sought the restraining order “on the grounds that CMP and Daleiden violated [the 3rd Reich’s] anti-wiretapping law under Penal Code § 632 (Invasion of Privacy Act).”]]
They didn’t wiretap anyone, they videotaped them-
[[I’m all for CMP recording these undercover videos but I have always struggled to understand the privacy laws in connection with recording.]]
not a lawyer, but in some states you don’t even need consent by other party to tape their conversations over the phone- it’s of course different from one state to another- not sure what cali law are- being a liberal law, I woulda thought NOone had a right to privacy- but I am probably mistaken
Depends on state law. In New York State, for example, as long as one of the parties consents—and it can be the one making the recording—even a private conversation such as a telephone call can be recorded within the law. It's eavesdropping that's prohibited.
In more public places, as someone pointed out, the reasonable expectation of privacy is even less. But other states are more stringent. My observation is that the more conservative states are more careful to protect privacy.
I may be mistaken, but I believe it was califoenication that just ruled that a photographer was fully within their rights to take photos of people inside their homes, through their windows, and to display those photos in public- Maybe it was another state- can’t remember now- but I think it was cali
it appears California is a ‘two party consent’ state- so shows like the msnbc one would not be allowed to record criminals in that state-
California Wiretapping Law
California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a privateconversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
Forward said videos to me and I’ll be more than happy to post them online regardless of what any judge has to say about it.
A spokesman for CMP was on Hannity a couple of days ago. He was asked about this subject and made it clear that the videos were done in complete accordance with the law in the states where they were recorded.
Some states require the acquiesence of one party -- which is, of course, the CMP representative. Those recorded in the restaurant came under the heading of "overheard conversation" and don't require the approval of either party.
It dawns on me you don’t have to give consent for the interactions between you and a police officer making a traffic stop. You should not have to have consent to record a conversation you are part of.
That’s a good point, but I believe, and may be mistaken, that police are the exception to the rule- but if not, that would be a great defense in court “I was recorded without my consent your honor”
They should have these videos on time release from servers outside the country. Make them public property. Who cares what a leftist California Court says.
California Superior Court where? Every damned state court is a Superior Court, and who is the effing judge who issued the order?
Who says the commie libs down at the Caucasian DNC doesn’t run the courts? They sure as heck do. This is proof of it.
Other than liberals you mean.
disobey the courts...\
“REBELLION TO TYRANNY IS OBIDIENCE TO GOD”
True, as far as I know.
Come on, SOMEONE has to have the cojones to say it! ;)
Other than the Obama Administration?
I don't know about the judges but I expect my conversations in public places, especially restaurants, could be overheard...
Post them on Яндекс, too. It would be amusing to watch Obama's DOJ and State deal with that. Isn't the internet a blast?
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.