I am wondering about ACORN bringing suit against Hannah Giles, undercover hooker, that broke the story about ACORN giving advice on how to set up a brothel, etc. The accusations I am hearing are about how it is illegal to film someone like that undercover without their knowledge. I have seen 60 Minutes, 20/20, etc. do that a hundred times and never heard about a law suit before. Why is this case different?
It’s a Maryland law, apparently.
If that’s the case, that girl is not planning her strategy too carefully. I read that her and “the pimp” did extensive research on ACORN and made a point to do the same sting on both coasts to see if the results indiciative or isolated within the organization. One would think that that would be something you would want to take into account before you do something like that.
I am curious at to why they are even bothering. Let’s say that ACORN’s lawsuit proceeds and, by some miracle, they win. The suit is only for…what? $5 million? Conservative causes will be fighting over the privilege of paying this off, and compared against the financial damage already done, it’s less than a drop in the bucket. Plus, it’s an open invitation to charge ACORN with attempting to suppress free speech / exact vengeance on whistleblowers, etc.
You’re right. They should sue them for more. IIRC ACORN received, on average, $3.5 million/year from the federal government which is now gone. Multiply that by, say, five years they can get $17.5 million.
Whatever the amount though it will make people who want to do that again to them think twice.
And I do not see how this is suppressing free speech. “Free speech” has all sorts of constraints on it (e.g. can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, can’t slander, etc.). It is by no means an absolute right.
I don’t know that the Maryland law applies - it seems to cover private communications. Whatever you may make of what ACORN was doing, it wasn’t private - especially as they were counseling various ways to work public systems.
Now, in other circumstances privilege would apply - to licensed social workers or lawyers, for instance. I don’t see that that applies here at all.
Perhaps the lawyer types on the board can educate me otherwise, but this doesn’t look like a slam dunk for ACORN. The only recent case we can look at was Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky, and that was unmistakably a private conversation. This isn’t as clear cut.
Free Speech is a right that only the government is not allowed to suppress.
Acorn is not, in any way shape or form, an agency of the government.
A whistleblower must work for the company to be defined as a whistleblower under the whistleblower protection laws. -If you’re going to play watchdog on a company you don’t work for, you’d better make sure you play by the rules.
Think we will need a lawyer to parse this for us.
This website says:
It also notes it requires the consent of all parties and video is covered.
Note that the actual complaint says they were in an office thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Is that enough? No idea myself.
It was a private conversation because the ACORN people had an expectation of privacy. They may have been counseling various ways to work public systems, but they weren’t doing so publicly…they weren’t in a public place or broadcasting the information to the public.
One thing they can get is discovery, i.e. the unedited tapes, which the scammers are currently hiding.
Let ACORN sue. Hannah and her lawyer will have a field day in the discovery phase. That alone may be worth the $5 million.
Seriously, though, I have a feeling this will get thrown out. I can’t see how they can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. But, then again, I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I’m not so sure that ACORN will welcome the reciprocal discovery the defendants would get, though.
But it’s certainly their right to sue.
IANAL either but why not?
If I walk into your business and go into your office to discuss something I have no expectation of privacy? If we are discussing, say, my compensation to get hired that is not private because you are a company employee? That info can be broadcast to everyone without my approval?
I’m curious…doesn’t discovery have to be relevant to the case at hand? Or can they request pretty much anything and get it?
If it must be relevant I am hard pressed to think what discovery the defendants could get. Other video tapes of ACORN counseling prostitutes that ACORN is sitting on?
Reciprocal discovery of what? What does ACORN have to hide?
My understanding is that the rules of the discovery phase are much more relaxed, and everything can be tangentially related to the case. Hopefully a lawyer will be around soon to sort this all out.
You made me laugh with this. Thanks!
snerk!
Well, first of all their Employee Manual on how to pimp out young children. And then the Radical Handbook. There’s a lot of stuff that they’re obviously hiding from the mainstream media. Just ask anyone with a show on Fox or AM radio.
So you have no answer to the question. I’m completely serious. What does ACORN have to worry about?
Apparently in Maryland you have no expectation of privacy if you are talking loud enough for others to hear. Plus the fact there were numerous people in the room in MD. Here is a quick link that talks about this