ACORN Filmmaker: 'I Don't Know' If I Broke Law

[Hissyspit]

Source: Raw Story

ACORN filmmaker: ‘I don’t know’ if I broke law
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Sunday, September 27th, 2009 -- 10:20 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

The filmmaker behind the ACORN tapes says he doesn’t know if he broke Maryland law when he filmed workers at the group’s Baltimore office.

Fox’s Chris Wallace named James O’Keefe the “Power Player of the Week” for the videos he made of himself and a female companion pretending to be a pimp and a prostitute, soliciting advice from ACORN workers on how to cover up the importation of underage prostitutes from Latin America.

But when Wallace asked O’Keefe, in a taped segment on Fox News Sunday, whether O’Keefe had broken the law by filming the incident, the filmmaker responded: “Um, I don’t know. If you want to equate the concealment of the prostitution of children with videotaping someone without their consent, that’s your moral prerogative.”

It should be noted the hidden-cam video involved only false claims of prostitution and child smuggling. Under Maryland law, all parties involved in a private conversation must consent to be recorded, under criminal penalty.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2009/09/okeefe-not-sure-wiretap-laws/

[Joanne98]

1. U LIE! Put him in prison where he belongs!

:party:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. I doubt that's what the criminal code calls for.

[KamaAina]

2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Ignorance is no excuse, period. We are dealing with Faux, after all. :eyes:

[frazzled]

3. Um, yes he did

Most states, including Marlyand, have laws against surreptitious recording, and most Film/Video 101 students are rigorously taught this by their schools.

On the other hand, his quote is laughable: "... if you want to equate the concealment of the prostitution of children with videotaping someone without their consent."
Um, nobody was actually doing prostitution and child smuggling, so there was really nothing to conceal, was there? You, sir, actually did videotape someone without their consent.

Lastly, and this is so buried no one will read it, so what the hey: I have to say that every time I see a thread on this board that begins with the words "Matt Taibbi" I throw up a little in my mouth. Because Taibbi (sans video camera, but the guy is supposed to be a reporter you know, so it's just as bad) is guilty of a similar "journalistic" scam--posing as a porn producer to a group of young folk who had organized a Wes Clark meetup in Boston back in 2003, and then writing a scathing front-cover article against Clark using these "dumb, gullible" kids as the hook. Pfeh ... Matt Taibbi has just as little integrity as these right-wing kids, and we should condemn him too.

[grantcart]

8. The collective memory of DU is a deep and long river, lol.

I didn't know that about Taibbi but it fits.

[marshall]

9. Maryland has such a law, but not most states

Most states in fact don't have the strict law that Maryland has--I believe there are only twelve that have such.

So we'd all be wise to watch what we're saying--we could be on candid camera. And if an outlandish looking pimp and his bodacious "protegee" ask us for advice about running a brothel--show them the door!

[bridgit]

4. Ignorance is no defense, this racist tool broke the law as did they he worked for

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6576332#6586173

[blogslut]

5. I'm having a psychic vision

James O'Keefe suing Morton Blackwell for not fully informing him of the pitfalls of creating surreptitious video.

:)

[stuball111]

6. Oh he knew....

If he was a legit "reporter" but then, is faux news a legit news org.?

[Hansel]

7. Ah yes. O'Keefe is a pure blood Republican.

So what if I violated the law, someone else did something worse because I said so, so there!

:cry:

Tiny bit defensive there aren't we, weasel. Now he's going to try to use his piece of crap video as his defense? He may have just open the door to force the entire raw footage into being entered as evidence.

[petronius]

10. I'd say the pat and practiced wording of that answer means he's perfectly

well aware that he did break the law, and hopes he can browbeat people into ignoring it. Slimy little prick...

[gratuitous]

11. Shorter O'Keefe: "I broke the law"

But as we all know by know, IOKIYAR.

[grok]

12. he is trying to save the money(suit wise)

In other words there IS a precedent involving the Maryland supreme court putting in their two cents. In a previous MARYLAND suit regarding these issues, the plaintiff has to PROVE, that the defendant KNEW he was breaking the law BEFORE the plaintif can collect damages. This is only true, that i know of, regarding the wiretap laws in question. A VERY easy out.

Bigmouth that he is, he might have said something about this to somebody. The problem is finding that one person that he talked to regarding Maryland law. And getting them to testify.

I would suggest finding out.

As far as the criminal aspect, this has nothing to do with it. It won't save his ass. However, he still has two good points in his favor even though he is guilty as sin.

A. I have yet to hear about a successful prosecution of a "journalist" in Maryland along the points in question. Has ANYBODY heard of one? Current mainstream ethics frowns upon these types of stings, but they have not been totally disavowed yet. I think Stossel was the last one and the prosecution gave up in that case.

B. If there have been no prosecutions of this nature of a "journalist", or very few, it WILL be viewed by the courts as "selective prosecution". He would probably win on appeal. the state court in the area might be liberal, but the federal court is very conservative.

[sabrina 1]

14. If he is a journalist, then my kindergarten students are pulitzer prize

worthy.

He conducted a sting operation. He just lied again, by insinuating he was uncovering a crime. A crime that was non-existent except in his pathetic, racist mind. Even law enforcement has to have approval before doing something like this, eg some evidence that a crime has been committed.

Were there even the rumors that what he is still lying about was taking place? The answer is 'no'.

But in the mind of this racist pos, those black people would probably be doing it anyhow if only they thought about it, 'cause that's what they do. So he thought about it for them.

This racist theme runs through most of his little stunts. He is an extremely disturbed individual, filled with hatred for minorities and the 'liberals' who in his disturbed and over-heated brain, help them, to VOTE and to BUY HOMES. This cannot be tolerated, he has said so himself.

He is badly in need of help and as such, a perfect tool for the miserable scum he works for.

He lies with impunity, even now when he has been sued. It's a habit he cannot break.

He edited tapes to make them say what he wanted them to say. He and Fox outright lied about several of the people he met. He has not produced the tapes from the Philly Office where, eg, he was told to leave and a police report was filed. And how many others where he was told to leave, have we not seen?

Fox News is serioulsy dangerous to this democracy. To even entertain the idea of interviewing a wacko like this who should be interviewed by people in white coats, let alone to encourage him, is a new low for a network I really thought could not sink any lower.

Other cases of people being taped without their knowledge, did they include the creation of a crime with no previous evidence of any kind that such a crime was going on? Did they do it with the intention of smearing an organization for political reasons? I think this is a bit different than KNOWING about a crime and trying to uncover it. This little creep invented a crime, out of his own racist brain and then tried to find a few black people to fit his beliefs, which because of his racist beliefs, he was certain would be easy to do. Apparently it wasn't. But he has yet to admit that. I consider what he set out to do to be a hate crime.