• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Another O'Donnell "smear" thread

O'Donnell is confused about the First Amendment again.

Following a radio interview, she demanded that the station turn over a videotape they made. She threatened to sue them. Later, a spokesperson from her campaign threatened to "crush" the station with a lawsuit. Later, O'Donnell's lawyer pointed out that the radio station's actions were protected by the First Amendment and persuaded O'Donnell's campaign to retract the threats and apologize.

Really--I'm not making this up!


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/#more-131216
 
*Shrug* She was probably told that what the station did was illegal so she put it upon herself to call the station.
 
Repeat thread. =)

Is it a 1st Amendment issue to demand videotape of an interview??
 
I want to know why she would let them have the audio but not the video. Maybe she was wearing a Nazi SS uniform? Has she denied this yet?
 
EatatJoes said:
Repeat thread. =)
Click to expand...
Is there already a thread on this topic? I searched and didn't see anything. Let me know if there is.

ETA: Nevermind. I see it now. I've already requested the mods merge this thread with that one.


Is it a 1st Amendment issue to demand videotape of an interview??
Click to expand...
Yes. According to O'Donnell, the station had no right to make this tape so she thinks she can demand it be destroyed. (Maybe I didn't make that part clear. O'Donnell wants to prevent the radio station from showing/publishing/rebroadcasting the video.) According to her lawyer, the radio station is protected by the First Amendment.

The radio station planned to use the video on their website--a common practice these days.

Or are you claiming that First Amendment free speech rights don't cover this?
 
Last edited:
EatatJoes said:
*Shrug* She was probably told that what the station did was illegal so she put it upon herself to call the station.
Click to expand...
According to the story I read, she made the demand on her own immediately following the interview, then a spokesman from her campaign called later and threatend to "crush" the station with a lawsuit. Then later, her campaign's lawyer pointed out that she and the spokesperson were both wrong, that the radio station's actions were protected by the First Amendment, and that they retract and apologize for the threats.

Pretty much the opposite of how you imagine it happened.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Is there already a thread on this topic? I searched and didn't see anything. Let me know if there is.


Yes. According to O'Donnell, the station had no right to make this tape so she thinks she can demand it be destroyed. (Maybe I didn't make that part clear. O'Donnell wants to prevent the radio station from showing/publishing/rebroadcasting the video.) According to her lawyer, the radio station is protected by the First Amendment.

The radio station planned to use the video on their website--a common practice these days.

Or are you claiming that First Amendment free speech rights don't cover this?
Click to expand...

I think the two threads were posted at the same time.

I wasn't sure just what the law states. O'Donnell's camp claimed that permission needed to be obtained in order for the interview to be videotaped. It appears her lawyer corrected her and stated that the station didn't need to granted permission and the station is covered by the 1st Amendment....How does free speech cover this issue (I'm just asking here)?
 
What kind of moron does an interview in front of a camera and thinks that it will not be handled in the same way that the interviewer handles other taped interviews? This has to be one of the most deranged candidates in this election cycle.

Get a clue, dingbat. Having your face on display is good for you if you look at all presentable.

[SIZE=*1*]Unless, of course, you just realized that you said something batcrapcrazy and need to be able to say that the station took it out of context and edited out something that would have made it look half-way rational.[/SIZE]
 
EatatJoes said:
*Shrug* She was probably told that what the station did was illegal so she put it upon herself to call the station.
Click to expand...

JoeTheJuggler said:
According to the story I read, she made the demand on her own immediately following the interview, then a spokesman from her campaign called later and threatend to "crush" the station with a lawsuit. Then later, her campaign's lawyer pointed out that she and the spokesperson were both wrong, that the radio station's actions were protected by the First Amendment, and that they retract and apologize for the threats.

Pretty much the opposite of how you imagine it happened.
Click to expand...

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."
 
EatatJoes said:
I think the two threads were posted at the same time.
Click to expand...
Nah--Scrut started his a good 30 minutes before I started mine. Either I'm blind or there's a lag time in new threads showing up in the forum's search feature.

I wasn't sure just what the law states. O'Donnell's camp claimed that permission needed to be obtained in order for the interview to be videotaped.
Click to expand...
As long as by "O'Donnell's camp" you mean O'Donnell herself.

It appears her lawyer corrected her and stated that the station didn't need to granted permission and the station is covered by the 1st Amendment....How does free speech cover this issue (I'm just asking here)?
Click to expand...

She attempted to prevent the video from being shown.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I just don't get this at all. If the audio was OK but not the video...or was it just videotapped...See, this is why I am confused.
 
EatatJoes said:
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."
Click to expand...


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? ;)

ETA: Not that your version of events paints her in a more flattering light. At best you're saying she's so ignorant of the First Amendment that she'll take Constitutional law advice from an aide.
 
Last edited:
EatatJoes said:
Yeah, I just don't get this at all. If the audio was OK but not the video...or was it just videotapped...See, this is why I am confused.
Click to expand...

Because the video is much better fodder for the pundit shows. If a blunder is made, and it is on video, it will sit more firmly in the minds of the general public then simply sound alone. Think of the effect the Couric Interview of Palin would have had if it was ONLY audio.

TAM:)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Nah--Scrut started his a good 30 minutes before I started mine. Either I'm blind or there's a lag time in new threads showing up in the forum's search feature.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you made the mistake of searching on "Tea Party" instead of the more appropriate "Teabagger"?

Or did you type in "nut" instead of "whacktard"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom