Noted Media Ethicist James O’Keefe Thinks You Are Creepy, Mother Jones

It's a felony that no one in the video was dressed like a pimp.

I'll gladly do the jail time on the video guy's behalf.

"Context" "Raw tape"? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Jimmy is very concerned about ethical violations unless he is committing them. What is the word for that? hmmm, I know. Hypocrite.

According to this, Mitt Romney can maybe sue for damages. It is not clear whether "butthurt" and "interference with collection of my birthright" are cognizable damage categories under Florida law, though.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/florida-re…

In other news, Twitterz is telling me that Brietbart is still dead …

"Or filming when only one person around?"

Huh? Did he just ask if the camera was only filming one person? Did he SEE the video, or does he just take to the Twatters to start posting random questions?

"oh what a tangled web, etc" Why does anyone give a rat's @$$ what this moron says?

Would someone with Wonkette Blogz LLC please find out why your site keeps asking me if I want to open some Flash file? (It's only happening on the homepage.)

'Cause that shit is annoying as holy fuck.

ETA: Wrong file type changed to correct one.

So the idea is:

Shitty anti-Muslim video placed anonymously on Utube: Freeedumz!!!!

Tape of $50,0000/plate fundraising dinner by presidential candidate: Felony!!!!

Did I get this right?….

I don't think you want to get in an ethics battle with Mother Jones James.

I was thinking last night about how jealous that smug little prick would be. Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Compound that with it being Jimmie Carter's grandson. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

LOL. Love the mouse over message for the twitter pics.

I believe if I had been nationally humiliated and shown for the abject failure of humanity that James has been these last few years, to the point where I am not allowed to leave my state of residency, because, pending felony charges, the LAST thing I would do is jump into a discussion about someone doing what I have been proven to suck at in a successful way. I am as embarrassed for him as anything. He's dumb, ain't he?

I wonder if @JamesOkeefeIII is one of those fellows who compulsively Googles @JamesOkeefeIII every day to see who is talking about @JamesOKeefeIII?

@JamesOkeefeIII

(that ought to bump this up Google's rankings)

James O'Keefe: not just a not-journalist, but a not-lawyer, too!

Just received this tweet from Vanity Fair:
"Someone on my blog just referred to Mitt Romney as Money Boo Boo. I got nothin' that'll top that."

Which one of yous posted that???

I can think of no response to this shithead but slaming my head against a wall repeatedly.

See James, this is how you do it. No editing required.

Another stoopid thing Mitt said in that speech in May:

"… my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see, without actually doing anything, we’ll actually get a boost in the economy."

Behold the awesome power of Magic Undies!

This isn't exactly my core field, but it is close. More than anything else, this statute points to how the law is written reactively and often with unintended consequences, which in this case would ultimately make a conviction hard to obtain both as a matter of law and a matter of fact.

If you look at the core of this, it was a state adjunct to wire-tapping statutes that came out in the 20s and 30s. As far as it went, it sort of made sense, and was premised on the idea that telephonic conversations should be just as private as individual meetings, even though the technology was subject to various forms of interception. That was also why a lot of states invoked all party consent rules to recording, since at the time it was thought that you'd generally not expect a face to face conversation to be recorded.

But then technology had to go and evolve to allow for cel phones, spike mikes, parabolic dishes and all sorts of other fun. So the law throws in a bunch of additions for "oral communications" and various forms of intercepting technology to make sure only the government can spy on private citizens with impunity. The result is a stinking mess turning on definitions of public vs. private events, expectations of confidentiality and what "interception" means.

The law has plainly not caught up with the fact that most people are now packing hi-res cameras and microphones at all times and that there really is a much lowered collective expectation of privacy (which sucks, if you ask me). I could see a prosecutor trying to make a case out of this, assuming they are a good water carrier for Mittens, but there would be many problems:

1. As a matter of law, criminal statutes have to be clear enough that people know whether their conduct is or is not illegal, and have to be interpreted narrowly to that end. Not that a subjective idiot wouldn't know, but that objectively most of us would look at conduct and know to refrain from it as a matter of criminal law. I don't think you could say that here.

2. There is too little known about this event and Mittens' policies about similar events to state definitively it carried any expectation of privacy. On the one hand, it was closed to the media and had a hefty price tag. On the other, apparently any number of people ponying up the cash would be doing so precisely to hear what Mitt had to say and then relying on that conversation to spread the gospel according to Romney. Attorneys would want to know what, if any, agreements were signed or instructions given about the nature of the information.

3. Although not set forth in the statute, this law has to comport with the First Amendment too and any broader state level exemptions. There's a strong argument to be made that any party hearing these remarks would have a right to report them to further the national political dialog. Once you can report them, the ability to record them normally follows, since that is seen as having less potential for manipulation and bias (except when Fox or O'Keefe is involved). At least, that's what the ACLU would be screaming if anyone tried to bring a criminal case.

A potential civil lawsuit would have a greater potential to succeed, especially if the party recording it was under some form of non-disclosure agreement. But damages would be almost impossible to prove, an injunction would not be forthcoming owing to the newsworthy nature of the material, and it would make the Romney campaign look even douchier than normal.

This last point, by the way, is why good campaigns don't talk about what laws might have been broken or suing when they get their hands caught saying something stupid. It just looks terrible.

This is beautiful.

OT but I was watching the entire Romney video (no, I'm not going to say "full Romney") and at about 5:40 he's describing Israel and calls Tel Aviv the capital. This should please the right wing, especially after he's gone to such great lengths to say publicly that Jerusalem is the capital. At this point Mitt might consider releasing a few more years of tax returns just to take the attention off this speech.

That Ken Burns doc was a real bummer tonight. Sadness upon sadness. Thanks for providing humorous distraction to take to my bed tonight. (Ooh, la, la).

'Later, losers. (As Mittens would define you.)

I do not love thee, James O'Keefe,
In stating why, I can be brief:
You have the morals of a thief.
I do not love thee, James O'Keefe.

OT but why the dick must I wake up and hear Erik Erickson flapping his gums on Morning Edition? Morning sucks enough as it is.