** december ** do you plan on answering my question any time soon?
Unfortunately, there was an intervening post, which masked the fact that the above quote from the cite was the answer to your question.
Misrepresentation via use of Harvad Letterhead. Not really sure if this is a crime, but if it is, then some legal action is warranted. Any idea if MA state law covers this?
Let’s walk through this slowly, friend. I write to you, ask you for a story THAT I TELL YOU I AM GOING TO PUBLISH IN A BOOK.
You don’t respond to my request.
Later, it comes out that I was going to be writing a different book than suggested.
Tell me: at what point was your right to privacy violated?
Daniel
No, you answered the question with a non-sequitur. A right to privacy does not protect one from being asked uncomfortable personal questions. It prevents one from being compelled to give an answer. Ashcroft was asked a question that he declined to answer. His privacy rights were no more infringed by Franken’s request than his free speech rights would be infringed by a letter saying “Shut Up.”
IANAL but I think there would have to be some attempt to defraud the university, or posing as a representaive of Harvard to defraud John Ashcroft. I guess it comes down to a definition of “fraud.” There was no solicitation of money or attempt at personal gain so I would imagine that it would pretty hard to make a case for criminal fraud.
In order to file a cilvil case, Harvard would have to show damages and I don’t see how anybody was damaged in this case.
BTW, I seriously doubt that Harvard would go after Limbaugh either.
jesus, ** december, ** are you kidding? Do you have the slightest clue what “right to privacy” means?
Could you explain, in your own words, what the hell your conclusion is drawn from?
Oh, thank you jeev, dan.
In light of the posts, ** december, ** care to withdraw?
Al Franken is a political satirist; I don’t think it’s appropriate to hold him to the same standards as a public official, nor those of a serious journalist. Network news programs are supposed top be impartial. Franken is quite obviously not trying to be impartial.
Are you going to castigate The Daily Show for conducting satirical interviews that are presented as if they were serious?
What about The Onion?
Apples & oranges.
You don’t have a problem with Franken trying to obtain personal information by means of a lie? Oh, I forgot – you’re a liberal.
He wasn’t trying to obtain “personal information” under the guise that it would be kept private. He asked for a personal testimonial which would be published in a book. Ashcroft had the choice to give a public testimonial or not to. He chose not to. End of story. There was no invasion of privacy because there was no pretense or expectation that anything Ashcroft said would be kept private. He was specifically told that anything he said would be made public.
Hot Damn! December shows us his abilities at twisting people’s words yet again!
Oh, I forgot – he’s a conservative.
Daniel
If Al Franken didn’t do anything wrong, why did he send a written letter of apology?
How petty, childish, Coulter-esque, and unoriginal of you.
Franken didn’t violate Ashcroft’s privacy. He asked an impertinent question and got no answer. He did not attempt to do any probing to try and find out the answer, and did not try to compel Ashcroft to provide one. And the idea that Franken, a private citizen, could somehow, absent legal process, compel Ashcroft, the top law enforcement officer in the country, to do anything Ashcroft didn’t want to do is patently ridiculous.
You’ve alleged that Ashcroft’s right to privacy was violated, but your only support is that he was asked a question to which he did not give an answer. For a right to privacy to even be implicated, there has to be an exchange of some private information. There was none. Ergo, no violation of the right to privacy.
You didn’t simply state that Franken’s tactics were tasteless, immoral, or repugnant. You alleged that Franken violated Ashcroft’s right to privacy. In the absence of an exchange of private information, that position is untenable.
December, you bright and intelligent elder you, who’s saying he didn’t do anything wrong? Quit changing the subject.
Note what he feels worst about:
Does that help?
No?
Lemme spell it out: he doesn’t give a shit about misleading Ashcroft. He’s sorry for using Harvard’s reputation in a prank without their permission.
Daniel
December:
Doing something that is ethically wrong is not the same as doing something that is illegal. Franken apologized for the former.
Franken is a buck-toothed moron.
That said, I don’t see anything other than “prankishness” with regard to his letter to Ashcroft. That’s the sort of thing that humorists do, and Al Franken thinks he’s a humorist.
I do think he owes an apology to Harvard, and he’s apparently offered it. His use of the Harvard letterhead was unauthorized, and Harvard has every right to be upset about that. But even this is not a great crime, considering his use wasn’t criminal, and I certainly think his apology ought to square the books with Harvard.
So - Franken: not funny, but not criminal, unless you consider the damage he did to SNL when he was a cast member as well as a writer. THAT was criminal.
- Rick
bricker, while I disagree with you about Franken’s humor (at least sometimes he’s funny), that’s de gustibus, and I’m not one to disputandem.
However, “the damage he did to SNL when he was a cast member as well as a writer. . . THAT was criminal”?! Whachoo talkin about?
According to this biography of Al Franken, he was one of the show’s original authors:
Looks to me like he didn’t do damage to the show as a writer; on the contrary, he was responsible for a fair amount of its initial success. I certainly don’t think he can be held accountable for the show’s execrable era in the early nineties.
Or do you just hate Stuart Smalley?
Daniel
Yes, I do hate Stuart Smalley.
I phrased my cut at Franken poorly. “When he was a cast member as well as a writer” was meant to distinguish the time when he was only a writer from the time in which he joined the cast. In other words, it was his stint as a cast member/writer that was contemporaneous with the show’s first big dip in quality; his time as a writer only appears to have produced little damage or - dare I admit it? - actual quality.
- Rick
I think it’s kind of a shame he has to go and squander his credibility like that.
While I didn’t think much of the meanspirited style and title of “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot,” it was hard to argue with facts… and Franken, when he chose to do so, put up facts in that book with a vengeance, as well as pointing out a considerable amount of Republican spin-doctoring intended to mislead the American public… as well as (of course) exposing a large number of Limbaugh’s “statements which have turned out to not be as Limbaugh said they were,” to use totally neutral language.
But I would rather see Franken annoying Ashcroft than making any more television or movies with Stuart Smalley in them…
Geez, give the guy a break. Nobody can be funny all the time. Even Eddie Murphy, who is frequently lauded as the best SNL cast member ever, IMO failed miserably with that “I’m Gumby, dammit!” crap. Talk about not funny…