Merged Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Threatens To Sue Delaware Radio Station

[EatatJoes]

I read the link provided...

"Upon the conclusion of the interview, an O'Donnell aide demanded video of the interview be turned over to the campaign and destroyed because such videotaping had not been previously approved.

It was then, according to WDEL, that O'Donnell herself threatened to sue the station if it did not comply with the request. WDEL also says it later fielded a phone call from O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran, who threatened to "crush" the station with a lawsuit if it did not agree to turn over the tape."

Yes. The threat to sue started with O'Donnell, right?

Pretty much the opposite of what you said originally.

She really doesn't understand the First Amendment. She's also got a really strange idea of how the campaign process works if she thinks she needs to sign a release for anyone to use public statements or interviews.

ETA: I wonder if she'll hold out for a percentage of the gate for any debates she participates in? Or maybe royalties from campaign ads?

Yeah, uh no. First (as reported in this story) her aide said something and then O'Donnell did. I will admit when my reading comprehension has failed me but it didn't in this instance. I thought that perhaps her aide told her "They can't use the video".

I do want clarification as to how this is a 1st Amendment issue, specifically free speech (if that is what was claimed). I could see this being a freedom of the press thing but free speech? And what are the laws with videotaping people? If you are a candidate you do not need to sign a release?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, uh no. First (as reported in this story) her aide said something and then O'Donnell did. I will admit when my reading comprehension has failed me but it didn't in this instance. I thought that perhaps her aide told her "They can't use the video".

But who issued the first threat to sue?

And again, at best you're saying O'Donnell is so ignorant that she'll take legal advice from an aide.

I do want clarification as to how this is a 1st Amendment issue, specifically free speech (if that is what was claimed). I could see this being a freedom of the press thing but free speech?

It's both. And both are First Amendment issues. She was attempting to quash the station's right to use their videotape.

And what are the laws with videotaping people? If you are a candidate you do not need to sign a release?

No. If you appear in public, you can be taped/photographed without your permission.

Do you really think a candidate (or anyone else) signs a release every time they're recorded by the news media?

It's a problem in situations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, but a public interview isn't one of those situations.

 

[roger]

I don't think it's in there anywhere.

I'm pretty sure the thing is just sort of a suggestion, anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe her ultra-literalist type of strict constructionism goes like this: the First Amendment doesn't say anything at all about radio broadcasts (or video posted on the Web), therefore it doesn't apply here.

 

[EatatJoes]

But who issued the first threat to sue?

And again, at best you're saying O'Donnell is so ignorant that she'll take legal advice from an aide.

I don't know who did. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt based on my first impressions of who I thought took action first.

At best I suppose that is what I am saying.

It's both. And both are First Amendment issues. She was attempting to quash the station's right to use their videotape.


No. If you appear in public, you can be taped/photographed without your permission.

Do you really think a candidate (or anyone else) signs a release every time they're recorded by the news media?

It's a problem in situations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, but a public interview isn't one of those situations.

Without sounding too damn pedantic...the reason why I thought that perhaps there was a reasonable expectation that a release should be signed is because you often see people's faces blurred unless those people sign a release. I am no expert on this, I just want some info. Should O'Donnell have known better, I guess so since she's been doing this for awhile. Does she always sign a release when she's been videotaped by a news organization? I don't know. She acts like the videotape is not the station's property.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Without sounding too damn pedantic...the reason why I thought that perhaps there was a reasonable expectation that a release should be signed is because you often see people's faces blurred unless those people sign a release. I am no expert on this, I just want some info. Should O'Donnell have known better, I guess so since she's been doing this for awhile. Does she always sign a release when she's been videotaped by a news organization? I don't know. She acts like the videotape is not the station's property.

Exactly. And she's running for the Senate, an office where she will "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. Hard to do if she's got such elementary gaps in her knowledge.

She does not sign a release every time she's recorded or answers questions in public. She has no right to quash the video.

Those pixellated faces you see are generally when there's some reasonable expectation of privacy. I've never seen it when it's a person conducting a scheduled interview or even when it's a public figure answering media questions even while running to or from their car.

 

[EatatJoes]

Exactly. And she's running for the Senate, an office where she will "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. Hard to do if she's got such elementary gaps in her knowledge.

She does not sign a release every time she's recorded or answers questions in public. She has no right to quash the video.

Those pixellated faces you see are generally when there's some reasonable expectation of privacy. I've never seen it when it's a person conducting a scheduled interview or even when it's a public figure answering media questions even while running to or from their car.

*giggle* OK.

 

[leftysergeant]

In a situation like that, isn't the audio usually recorded onto the same media with the video? Seems that that would mean deleting the whole interview.

Sorry, but when you are running for office, you do not get to tell the news media that you demand a do-over for your stupidity or to hide what you don't like about how you came across. She seems to think that she can edit the news like it was her paid campaign ad.

America needs fewer people like that airhead in office.

 

[EatatJoes]

I really want to see the video now. Probably much ado about nothing though...which would make this whole thing seem even more weird.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1604655990036&ref=mf

 

[EatatJoes]

I'm listening to it now (I'm cleaning so I'm not watching it). Did she pick her nose or something?? I think she did fine. The host was quite gracious to her. The only time things got "heated" is when she focused on what someone else in the gov't did and wouldn't answer questions that seemed to only be relevant to local gov't, not state gov't.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I only watched a minute or two. I think she looked cute.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I really want to see the video now. Probably much ado about nothing though...which would make this whole thing seem even more weird.

Well much ado about O'Donnell thinking she has the right to keep the radio station from showing this video (or you from watching it).

It shows either ignorance of or a disdain for the First Amendment in a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

 

[Puppycow]

She is known for her litigiousness, although not for any success at it.

 

[SezMe]

I only watched a minute or two. I think she looked cute.

Me too but the voice is nails on a chalkboard. Or maybe it's poor audio quality.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I only watched a minute or two. I think she looked cute.

I didn't realize that she is 41! I'd hit that.

Is she still single? If so, I wonder if she is a virgin? Oh, Travis.......

 

[Infoexcavator]

Me too but the voice is nails on a chalkboard. Or maybe it's poor audio quality.

You are probably confusing her with Palin, O'Donnell has a very pleasant voice.

 

[T.A.M.]

Pleasant voice....insane ideas.

As for the video, apparaently it was all due to her making a gesture to her handler that she was annoyed with a question asked, that should not have been allowed based on their media policy (softballs only please).

TAM

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not really interested in why she wanted the video quashed--only that she was under the misapprehension that she has the legal right to do so.

Again, for someone who hopes to take an oath of office that includes pledging fealty to the U.S. Constitution, her knowledge is such that her pledge would be meaningless. This and the teaching Creationism in public schools (the issue of separation of church and state--or her knowledge of the judiciary's interpretation of the Establishment Clause) aren't fine or technical esoteric legal points, but really basic, fundamental First Amendment stuff.

 

[EatatJoes]

Joe, that and she thinks that fetuses are covered by the Constitution...