# 47% video source interviewed Wednesday **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 13, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780 "2013-03-13T01:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/81 "2013-03-16T20:13:38Z")
I attribute it more to insularity, the goober-conservative not having any real contact with leftists, not having any clear idea what we think, and why. Not that it would necessarily help anything if they did. And so we turn to Hymn #115, from The Fugs… …Karl Marx nothing Engels nothing Bakunin and Kropotkin nothing Leon Trotsky lots of nothing Stalin _less_ than nothing… Ny uncles weren’t ready for The Fugs, they still wanted the Smothers Brothers tried for treason. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/82 "2013-03-16T23:36:52Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Can we really trust Scott Proudy? In 2005, he stole food from a poor family of starving alligators. Sounds like just another Chicago thug to me, helping thug-Obama with his thuggish tactics. Bravo, sir. > [@Marley23](#): > > That’s what I’ve read. That said, and I think I said this several times last year, it’s ridiculous how many political events are “private” these days, and to that end I’d be happy if a lot more people did what Prouty did. It’s sickening to read day after day about presidential and congressional strategy ad campaign events where the press is barred or thrown out because the candidates don’t want to talk about their plans or opinions in front of the press. They want to say one thing to their backers and donors and another to the rest of the public. > [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Is there a legal definition of ‘private’ in FLA? Since it was a fundraiser, I assume it was open to anyone who ponied up the dough which would not be that much different than a concert or ball game. Would that be legally different than an event where you had to be specifically invited? > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Speaking as a journalist, but with not special knowledge of Florida law, I’d say that taping a private event inside a closed room wouldn’t fall under ‘things done in public’. So taping it may get him in trouble, but only if someone wants to drag the republican party through the old mud of this thing for a few months. There’s no political profit to be made from going after this guy. Florida courts define public places as those “designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public.” Chardkoff Junk Co. v. City of Tampa, 135 So. 457, 461 (Fla. 1931). This was a private home, and the fundraiser was not open to the public. We’re not talking about a restaurant. On the other hand, there were dozens of people present, and Romney had no reasonable expectation of privacy. That doesn’t matter, though; §934.03, Florida Statutes, represents a legislative judgment that people have a privilege to be free of unwanted recording (Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 351 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1977)). So, without going into great depth, Proudy does not appear immune to prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/83 "2013-03-17T00:02:59Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > And he’s a bartender. He’s my dream guy! I think you’re going to have some competition. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/84 "2013-03-17T02:56:45Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > IANAL, but I believe that in Florida (my state) you can’t make a recording at a private event without everyone’s consent. Even a public figure has a right to privacy in a private setting. A presidential candidate speaking at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser is not speaking in a private setting. The law expressly permits recording this sort of thing with nobody’s consent. (I did some legal research in this area at work recently.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/85 "2013-03-18T13:51:52Z")
Where (in the statute, not geographically) is it expressly permitted? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/86 "2013-03-18T17:29:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Where (in the statute, not geographically) is it expressly permitted? Florida Statutes 932.02(2): (2) “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and **does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting** or any electronic communication. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/87 "2013-03-18T17:30:42Z")
Well, sure, but does that affect _anal_ communications, like Romney’s? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/88 "2013-03-18T20:36:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Florida Statutes 932.02(2): > > (2) “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and **does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting** or any electronic communication. You mean 934.02. Okay, so where is the definition of “public meeting” and how does a private fundraiser held at a private residence qualify under that definition? Look I think Romney’s a complete fucking tool and I’m glad he got busted, but that doesn’t mean the busting wasn’t without legal issues… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/89 "2013-03-19T00:51:37Z")
Seems to me that any political speech is inherently public, in the sense that it is part of the civic process. Why would anyone need to give a covert political speech, which is what is meant by “private”, in this context. It is possible that Romney thought he was giving such a speech to an audience universally hostile to its elitist and social Darwinist overtones, but it damn sure ain’t likely. The speech, its context, its audience is all political information. If I can deal with hearing about Obama palling around with Weathermen, they can hear about Romney sucking up to Daddy Warbucks and Gordy Gecko. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/90 "2013-03-19T01:23:57Z")
The subject matter is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/91 "2013-03-19T02:09:35Z")
The rich and privileged should legally expect privacy in such a setting with their household slaves serving them. I am Goddamn glad he got nailed on it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/92 "2013-03-19T02:35:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The subject matter is irrelevant. Oh! Well, I didn’t know that. Never mind, then. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/93 "2013-03-19T02:37:42Z")
Yes you did. We’re not talking about a law which suppresses speech or the press. We’re talking about one that limits the right to record _others’_ speech. Pretend you and someone else are talking politics in an otherwise empty room; do you think the content of the discussion means it’s for public consumption? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/94 "2013-03-19T14:27:46Z")
I am not a candidate, having turned aside all such pleas. Outside of the admitted brilliance and clarity of my opinions, there is no public interest in them. Alas. In a way, I steal a page from those who claim that the First Amendment is specific to political speech, that such speech is the only speech that is stringently protected. I assert that the public speech of a candidate is of public and civic interest, and drawing a gossamer veil of “private property” does not change anything. The location and venue of a meeting between the candidate and his financial backers, current and/or prospective, does not change the fact. I see no reason why a public figure needs the ability to offer opinions and agenda in stealth. Admittedly, there are those who would have us believe that the divinely-inspired rights of private property trump all such civic concerns, I am not one of them. Mr. Romney’s opinions on boxers vs briefs is not a matter of public concern. His opinions on his fellow citizens and their relative worth as declared by their respective credit worthiness is. No stealth candidates, no covert agenda. If a man cannot be comfortable with the glare of public scrutiny, he will not be forced to accept it. He need only refrain from offering himself for office. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/95 "2013-03-19T14:33:49Z")
Taken to its logical conclusion, your belief suggests that we should have access to all campaign strategy meetings, security briefings, or speechwriting sessions. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/96 "2013-03-19T14:51:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Taken to its logical conclusion, your belief suggests that we should have access to all campaign strategy meetings, security briefings, or speechwriting sessions. Good point, but this is campaigning rather than planning, and it would be a good use of C-Span. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/97 "2013-03-19T14:52:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Taken to its logical conclusion, your belief suggests that we should have access to all campaign strategy meetings, security briefings, or speechwriting sessions. I take it that I am supposed to reel in shock, horror and dismay at such an appalling prospect? “Gosh, I hadn’t thought about that, gee, that changes everything!” Let’s pretend that I actually could look upon that prospect without clutching my pearls and fainting dead away. What ghastly consequences do you foresee? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/98 "2013-03-19T14:55:43Z")
It’ll be pretty fucking impractical to run a campaign, won’t it? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/99 "2013-03-19T15:02:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’ll be pretty fucking impractical to run a campaign, won’t it? Watergate would be pretty fucking impractical. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780/100 "2013-03-19T15:15:03Z")
I am not a clever man, **RNATB**. My clarity is more a result of being somewhat simple-minded rather than a virtue. So, when you allude to threats and horrors without specifying, you leave me straining my eyes to see the frightful shapes in the fog, like the pilot who says “Hey, is that a mountain? Oh, sh…” For many years now, I have seen the results of too _little_ information, perhaps it is a failure of my imagination that I can’t dread too _much_ information. Since you do not suffer such limitations, perhaps you’ll help me out with that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/47-video-source-interviewed-wednesday/652780.md?page=6)