Does this teacher's lawsuit have merit?

[Omar_Little]

So, while attending a conference in 2015 in Orlando, a Wichita teacher, who is also president of the state of Kansas teacher’s union, was surreptitiously videoed while in a bar speaking in a braggadocious manner of what a badass he is with his students.

In the video, Wentz described an episode with a former student in which he asked the student to stay after class.

"I go over, shut the door, lock it, pull the shades down…and I go, ‘Do you really want to kick my ass? Do you really think I’m a (expletive)?’ “Wentz says in the video. ‘Son go for it, I’ll give you the first shot.’”

Asked in the video whether he said that to a student, Wentz can be heard saying, “I’ve done this more than once. And I said, ‘But I’ll guarantee you, I will kick your (expletive) ass.’”

Article: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/education/article158292894.html
Video link: http://projectveritas.com/video/teachers-union-president-admits-to-abusing-children/

Now, Wentz has filed a lawsuit against Veritas and Breitbart claiming the video has damaged his career and reputation, and that it is taken out of context and heavily edited.

He is suing for punitive damages and any money Project Veritas made off of the video.

[Ambivalid]

What’s your opinion?

[Gary_T]

I take it as a given that anything Breitbart does is sleazy and any action against them has merit.

[Spice_Weasel]

What he’s describing in the video is not “abusing children,” so wouldn’t that be a case for libel? Not that I think it’s behavior exemplary of a good teacher. Or a mature human being.

[Wolf333]

I automatically assume that anything put out by Project Veritas has been edited to look bad.

[Iggy]

Florida apparently is a two party consent state so recording him without his consent was not legal. So it seems the teacher has a case.

That said I am not sure that lack of consent of one party should turn any true, unedited recording magically into libel. Libel or slander, no.

Breach of privacy, maybe. But how much privacy can someone reasonably expect while talking shit in a bar? His own bragging is what caused any damage to his career and reputation, not lack of consent while recording his verbal pronouncements in a bar.

So if Project Veritas can show that the video was a true representation of what he actually said then I think they have a good defense. If they edited it so heavily as to create a product that does not fairly represent what he said then they should be held liable for damages.

[Little_Nemo]

@Gary_T

I take it as a given that anything Breitbart does is sleazy and any action against them has merit.

And James O’Keefe and Project Veritas are even lower down in the sewer.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Wolf333

I automatically assume that anything put out by Project Veritas has been edited to look bad.

And using their history as a guide, your assumption is completely justified.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Little_Nemo

And James O’Keefe and Project Veritas are even lower down in the sewer.

Many people have no idea how low:

In January 2010, O’Keefe began a column on Breitbart’s website, BigGovernment.com. Breitbart stated in an interview that he paid O’Keefe a salary for his “life rights” to gain release of O’Keefe’s videos first on his website. In 2010 O’Keefe formed his own organization, Project Veritas, whose stated mission is “to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.”

Much of the funding for Project Veritas comes from anonymous donations through Donors Trust, a conservative, American nonprofit donor-advised fund, which according to its promotional materials, says that it will “keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues.” Notable donors include the Trump Foundation, which, in May 2015, donated $10,000.

James O'Keefe | Career

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Iggy

Florida apparently is a two party consent state so recording him without his consent was not legal. So it seems the teacher has a case.

That said I am not sure that lack of consent of one party should turn any true, unedited recording magically into libel. Libel or slander, no.

Breach of privacy, maybe. But how much privacy can someone reasonably expect while talking shit in a bar? His own bragging is what caused any damage to his career and reputation, not lack of consent while recording his verbal pronouncements in a bar.

So if Project Veritas can show that the video was a true representation of what he actually said then I think they have a good defense. If they edited it so heavily as to create a product that does not fairly represent what he said then they should be held liable for damages.

Your 3rd paragraph is more accurate than your first; Florida’s laws regarding this are, um, nuanced. Cite

Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law.

Also:

What used to be clear is no longer so. Chapter 934 of the Florida statutes prohibits “any person” from recording oral communications without consent and disclosing such recordings. Simply put, you could not record a conversation with someone if they didn’t okay it first. That was, until recently. On June 7, 2013, the Second District Court of Appeals ruled in McDade v. State that such may not always be the case. The court held, based upon the 1985 Florida Supreme Court opinion in State v. Inciarrano, that a citizen does not have an expectation of privacy in what they say if the content of the statement is something that society is not willing to protect.

Mr. McDade was recorded by his step-daughter in the bedroom of his home without his knowledge. The court wrote that “though he did not use sexually explicit language, he appeared to be asking her to have sex with him.” The Second District found that society would not accept that there was a privacy interest in the comments made by Mr. McDade and therefore, no law was broken. Whether you have a right to privacy depends on “what” you say.

[Spice_Weasel]

O’Keefe is a piece of shit, no question. According to a memo I received at work, his latest project has been to run around trying to discredit domestic violence and sexual assault organizations like mine so that they can manufacture enough outrage to pull Victims of Crime Act funding. I mean, seriously fuck this guy. I hope he’s doing something illegal and it gets him nailed to the wall.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Spice_Weasel

O’Keefe is a piece of shit, no question. According to a memo I received at work, his latest project has been to run around trying to discredit domestic violence and sexual assault organizations like mine so that they can manufacture enough outrage to pull Victims of Crime Act funding. I mean, seriously fuck this guy. I hope he’s doing something illegal and it gets him nailed to the wall.

It wouldn’t be the first time he’s done something illegal and got caught. Read thru his wikipedia page, and you’ll notice that almost everything he’s ever done has had some aspect of criminality to it.