No wrongdoing for ACORN in Cal.

[TraneWreck]

This is really outrageous:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36204129#36204129

That video only deals with the California ACORN offices. People are demanding the release of all the unedited tapes.

The video speaks for itself, so I will just point out that the tail-between-the-legs response of the Democratic Party, beyond just being pathetic, has real consequences for future elections.

ACORN was nothing close to a perfect organization, but they were the only group attempting to include relatively poor, urban citizens in the democratic process. They organized a number of really solid programs, and generally advocated for people who have little to no voice.

Now they're gone. Intimidated by some punk who blatantly lied.

I'm betting that we'll get some false equivalency about Michael Moore, so I will say 2 things about that in anticipation:

1) Find an example of Moore or any left-leaning media advocate splicing a video that so drastically changes the content of the conversation. O'Keefe didn't selectively edit, he made criminal acts appear out of thin air.

2) How pathetic is it to go after low-level, local workers? These weren't CEO's or decision makers, just people sitting in ACORN offices trying to help their community. I would feel much different about this whole scenario if O'Keefe had gone after Bertha Lewis or the exec. who was caught embezzeling.

 

[elbe]

While I fully supported the goals of ACORN, I think it might be for the best that they have been disbanded. They've become target de jour of the right, constantly being attacked and "linked" to people for various political reasons.

Now I just hope something else forms to fill the void they left.

 

[steve s]

I hope the people who lost their jobs when ACORN shut down sue O'Keefe for lost wages.

Steve S

 

[TraneWreck]

I hope the people who lost their jobs when ACORN shut down sue O'Keefe for lost wages.

Steve S

I agree. I think the problem is going to be causation. O'Keefe didn't shut down ACORN, Congress did. Obviously the video was the motivating factor, but it's another thing to prove it.

I certainly think they have a slander suit.

 

[steve s]

I agree it would be difficult to prove, but it would be nice to see him squirm. Make him think twice about trying this type of thing again. And a suit would help generate more publicity regarding his shenanigans.

Steve S

 

[thaiboxerken]

Have they covered this new update on Fox News at all?

 

[GreyArea]

Now I just hope something else forms to fill the void they left.

In time to register many poor people to vote in the 2010 elections? Sounds like a tall order. Of course, since such activity is intolerable, any such group will make itself the next target of famous TV conspiracy theorists.

 

[Ziggurat]

I certainly think they have a slander suit.

Yeah, not so much. If they had a slander suit, they would have filed a slander suit. They didn't, because they don't. What happened in those tapes actually happened. You can argue all you want to about the significance of those tapes, you can argue all you want to about what was not shown, you can argue all you want to about all the good ACORN does, you can argue all you want to about how unfair it was to do a sting on low-level workers. But none of that matters: the tapes are real.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, not so much. If they had a slander suit, they would have filed a slander suit. They didn't, because they don't. What happened in those tapes actually happened. You can argue all you want to about the significance of those tapes, you can argue all you want to about what was not shown, you can argue all you want to about all the good ACORN does, you can argue all you want to about how unfair it was to do a sting on low-level workers. But none of that matters: the tapes are real.

...Did you watch the video?

They manipulated the tapes to make it appear the people were saying something they weren't.

 

[Ziggurat]

...Did you watch the video?

I watched the original videos, and much of Maddow's video. Enough to know that Maddow herself is blowing smoke. For example, she criticizes the video for showing O'Keefe dressed in full pimp regalia at the start of the videos, but he's wearing something different in the San Diego video. Small problem with Maddow's complaint: that intro sequence Maddow objects to is the same intro sequence for ALL their videos, which were shot at different times and in dfferent locations. Since Giles is rather obviously not wearing the same outfit in the edited video that she is in the intro sequence, you'd have to be an idiot to think upon viewing it that O'Keefe couldn't be wearing something different too. Is Maddow an idiot, or does she take her viewership to be such?

Another big complaint of hers is that since the video doesn't show everything, we don't get the other side of the story. But so what? O'Keefe and Giles are under no obligation to present a perfectly balanced picture of events. You can criticize them all you want to for not doing so, but telling only one side, or even only part of one side, doesn't constitute slander. The videos are real.

And finally, much of her complaint it isn't really about the video, it's about the coverage the whole affair got, particularly on Fox. I guess the fact that her viewership is a small fraction of Fox's really must piss her off. Boo hoo, Rachel.

 

[TraneWreck]

I watched the original videos, and much of Maddow's video. Enough to know that Maddow herself is blowing smoke. For example, she criticizes the video for showing O'Keefe dressed in full pimp regalia at the start of the videos, but he's wearing something different in the San Diego video. Small problem with Maddow's complaint: that intro sequence Maddow objects to is the same intro sequence for ALL their videos, which were shot at different times and in dfferent locations. Since Giles is rather obviously not wearing the same outfit in the edited video that she is in the intro sequence, you'd have to be an idiot to think upon viewing it that O'Keefe couldn't be wearing something different too. Is Maddow an idiot, or does she take her viewership to be such?

Another big complaint of hers is that since the video doesn't show everything, we don't get the other side of the story. But so what? O'Keefe and Giles are under no obligation to present a perfectly balanced picture of events. You can criticize them all you want to for not doing so, but telling only one side, or even only part of one side, doesn't constitute slander. The videos are real.

And finally, much of her complaint it isn't really about the video, it's about the coverage the whole affair got, particularly on Fox. I guess the fact that her viewership is a small fraction of Fox's really must piss her off. Boo hoo, Rachel.

I recommend watching it again.

1) O'Keefe never entered an ACORN office in the Pimp outfit--not a single one.

2) He edited the videos to make the ACORN officials look like horrible people. This is the meaningful part of the video. You should pay attention to that and ignore everything about Fox, if you want to.

They made one man look like he was helping them bring underage prostitutes across the border when he was gathering information and called the police IMMEDIATELY after they left.

And they made a woman look like she would help them get funding for a child sex ring when she was trying to help the young woman find a place to live.

O'Keefe is a dispicable human being and the least you could do was pay attention long enough to see how he slandered these ACORN workers with malicious editing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I recommend watching it again.

1) O'Keefe never entered an ACORN office in the Pimp outfit--not a single one.

How would Maddow know? Her report deals with the California State Attorney General's report, but that report only looked at tapes filmed in California. Clue for the clueless: that's not the only place, or the first place, that O'Keefe and Giles filmed.

2) He edited the videos to make the ACORN officials look like horrible people. This is the meaningful part of the video.

Again, boo hoo. That doesn't constitute slander. You need to actually tell a lie to commit slander. Omitting part of the truth doesn't qualify.

O'Keefe is a dispicable human being

Which constitutes slander... how? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, not so much. If they had a slander suit, they would have filed a slander suit. They didn't, because they don't. What happened in those tapes actually happened. You can argue all you want to about the significance of those tapes, you can argue all you want to about what was not shown, you can argue all you want to about all the good ACORN does, you can argue all you want to about how unfair it was to do a sting on low-level workers. But none of that matters: the tapes are real.

I'd suggest you watch this then. These tapes are also real.

 

[tyr_13]

How would Maddow know? Her report deals with the California State Attorney General's report, but that report only looked at tapes filmed in California. Clue for the clueless: that's not the only place, or the first place, that O'Keefe and Giles filmed.



Again, boo hoo. That doesn't constitute slander. You need to actually tell a lie to commit slander. Omitting part of the truth doesn't qualify.


Which constitutes slander... how? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

You don't think those editing techniques employed amount to lying? O'Keefe didn't lie about what many of these people actually did?

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think those editing techniques employed amount to lying?

No. It is, at worst, telling partial truths. You can claim that this is deceptive, but that is thin gruel indeed to form a slander suit from.

O'Keefe didn't lie about what many of these people actually did?

No, I don't see how you can conclude that he did. Consider the guy who called his police officer cousin, one of the cases Maddow harps on. Did he inform O'Keefe that he called his cousin? Of course not. So how was O'Keefe supposed to know that? O'Keefe reported his interpretation of events, based on what he saw. Whether or not that interpretation is correct is irrelevant to the question of slander. That should be obvious.

 

[tyr_13]

I'd suggest you watch this then. These tapes are also real.

No. It is, at worst, telling partial truths. You can claim that this is deceptive, but that is thin gruel indeed to form a slander suit from.



No, I don't see how you can conclude that he did. Consider the guy who called his police officer cousin, one of the cases Maddow harps on. Did he inform O'Keefe that he called his cousin? Of course not. So how was O'Keefe supposed to know that? O'Keefe reported his interpretation of events, based on what he saw. Whether or not that interpretation is correct is irrelevant to the question of slander. That should be obvious.

Watch the Colbert clip, seriously. It's at least funny.

But O'Keefe did know that the man didn't actually help him do any illegal activities. When the police confronted him about it, and he fails to mention that, he is lying.

 

[Ziggurat]

But O'Keefe did know that the man didn't actually help him do any illegal activities.

Well, duh. Of course he didn't, because O'Keefe didn't actually do those illegal activities he discussed.

When the police confronted him about it, and he fails to mention that, he is lying.

Nope. Withholding information is not legally equivalent to lying, let alone slander.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wrong. Lying by omission is still lying.

 

[Cavemonster]

Well, duh. Of course he didn't, because O'Keefe didn't actually do those illegal activities he discussed.



Nope. Withholding information is not legally equivalent to lying, let alone slander.

If I take a video of you saying "I hate (thoughtful pause) that this country still contains so much prejudice against people based on the color of your skin"

And then edit out the middle so it seems to show you saying "I hate people based on the color of their skin" That's deliberate misrepresentation through omission.

I'm afraid you're very wrong, to publish information that you know to create a false impression and to be damaging to the subject falls very easily within the grounds of defamation.

You're right that this is not slander, since this video was distributed through broadcast, the correct term is libel.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I take a video of you saying "I hate (thoughtful pause) that this country still contains so much prejudice against people based on the color of your skin"

And then edit out the middle so it seems to show you saying "I hate people based on the color of their skin" That's deliberate misrepresentation through omission.

I'm afraid you're very wrong, to publish information that you know to create a false impression and to be damaging to the subject falls very easily within the grounds of defamation.

Your example simply isn't equivalent to what actually happened. Nobody had their words spliced in the manner you suggest. What appears on the tape actually happened. It may not be the full story, but you will find a notable LACK of any examples of the sort you suggest.

And frankly, you've got no evidence that O'Keefe didn't think that ACORN was doing what it seemed to be doing. Much of the evidence presented in ACORN's defense consists of actions that O'Keefe would not have been privy to.

You're right that this is not slander, since this video was distributed through broadcast, the correct term is libel.

It's not libel either. Which is why, despite all their bluster, ACORN hasn't and won't file a lawsuit on those grounds. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any such suit. It's also why ACORN actually fired so many of their workers. Seriously, if those workers were all so innocent, their real grievance is against ACORN management, not O'Keefe. He had no power to fire anyone.