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.
Bravo, sir.
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.
I think you’re going to have some competition.
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.)
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.
Well, sure, but does that affect anal communications, like Romney’s?
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…
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.
The subject matter is irrelevant.
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.
Oh! Well, I didn’t know that. Never mind, then.
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?
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.
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. 
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?
It’ll be pretty fucking impractical to run a campaign, won’t it?
Watergate would be pretty fucking impractical.
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?