PDA

View Full Version : Weiner v. Breitbart -- US Supreme Court



SarasotaRepub
06-09-2011, 08:15 AM
:rolleyes:

Brother, some DUmmies just can't admit their guy is an idiot... (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1261528)




kentuck (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-09-11 05:39 AM
Original message Weiner v. Breitbart -- US Supreme Court


Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 05:40 AM by kentuck
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, protected the individual's right to privacy. Roe v. Wade came later. It is an established law.

Personally, I think Anthony Weiner needs to take this case to the courts. It would be a precedent in the technology era. If you send someone a private photo, pornographic or whatever, does someone else have a right to get that photo and put it all over the Internet and the world? Unless this individual was CC'ed the photo, then he would have no claim to it. He would have no right to disseminate the photo and to humiliate or destroy the life of the other individual.

With that said, I think Weiner's career is possibly over. His political life, and perhaps his personal life, is ruined. It is not relevant whether or not he sent pornographic photos of himself to women or not? The question is whether or not Mr Breitbart had the right to intercept or to attain those photos and put them out for everyone to see? I think the law would say that he does not and that he should be held accountable, both monetarily and criminally.

I think Congressman Weiner should take this all the way to the Supreme Court. It is not about whether he was right or wrong in his actions. It is about his right to privacy.



I know kentuck has been supporting his bud "Toni" but some of these assholes just don't know when to walk away.

Bailey
06-09-2011, 08:25 AM
Boy I love how this douche bag is reaching for an excuse to sue BB. I bet if Weiner had been an Rethug would he be fighting this hard?

fettpett
06-09-2011, 08:35 AM
these people are fucking idiots....one you are a public figure, you have NO right to privacy, be it politician, movie star, etc

pyackog
06-09-2011, 09:27 AM
:rolleyes:

Brother, some DUmmies just can't admit their guy is an idiot... (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1261528)





I know kentuck has been supporting his bud "Toni" but some of these assholes just don't know when to walk away.

Oh he is reaching like crazy. There are plenty of dems on that thread pointing out the obvious that once you post a pic on a public domain, well its public. He STILL keeps insisting that it SHOULD be wrong, lol.

txradioguy
06-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Note to kenfuck and the rest of the lurking DUmmies...you lose all expectation of privacy when you post your junk on a social media website.

Apache
06-09-2011, 11:20 AM
kentuck (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-09-11 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think that is the question?
Is there a right to show a "private" photo to whomever you wish if it was sent to "you"?
If "you" receive a photo from somebody (of a private nature) then it is up to "your" judgement who then see's it....


Many young women have found that out the hard way :rolleyes:

Odysseus
06-09-2011, 02:11 PM
Okay, so when is Rep. McDermott going on trial for hacking Gingrich's cell phone back when he was Speaker of the House?

Dan D. Doty
06-09-2011, 02:42 PM
Note to kenfuck and the rest of the lurking DUmmies...you lose all expectation of privacy when you post your junk on a social media website.


Correct !!!

Constitutionally Speaking
06-09-2011, 07:02 PM
Okay, so when is Rep. McDermott going on trial for hacking Gingrich's cell phone back when he was Speaker of the House?



EXACTLY.

Elspeth
06-11-2011, 12:18 AM
EXACTLY.

What was the Gingrich case about?

fettpett
06-11-2011, 05:47 AM
What was the Gingrich case about?

Back in 94-95 Rep. McDermott got a recording that was supposedly picked up on a little old couples wireless recording device. The phone call was between Newt and some aide or something about some strategy that they were working on. Thing was that this "couple" was in Florida at the time and Newt and his associate (i believe) were in DC, though it was on a cell phone.

(mind you my account might be off as it's what I remember from Rush and I was in middleschool/highschool at the time)

there were a lot of holes in Rep. McDermott's story and he got sued

Odysseus
06-11-2011, 02:01 PM
Back in 94-95 Rep. McDermott got a recording that was supposedly picked up on a little old couples wireless recording device. The phone call was between Newt and some aide or something about some strategy that they were working on. Thing was that this "couple" was in Florida at the time and Newt and his associate (i believe) were in DC, though it was on a cell phone.

(mind you my account might be off as it's what I remember from Rush and I was in middleschool/highschool at the time)

there were a lot of holes in Rep. McDermott's story and he got sued

You pretty much nailed it. Here's (http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/gingrichtripp.html) a good summary:


Think back to 1996, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. On December 21st of that year, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, were going Christmas shopping, and "just happened" to have a scanner and tape recorder in the car with them. They claimed to have "accidentally" monitored the cell-phone conversation of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as he spoke from his car in a conference call with several other key Republicans, including Gingrich. They just "happened" to record it "for history."

I'm sure it's common for people to accidentally intercept and tape private cell phone conversations while going Christmas shopping. Happens to me all the time.

The Martins then turned the tape over to Washington Democrat Jim McDermott, a member of the House Ethics Committee, which was about to rule on Gingrich's ethics violations. McDermott, in turn gave the tape to the New York Times and other newspapers. The New York Times then printed a transcript of the call's participants discussing how Gingrich should respond to the Ethics Committee.

Of course, it's just a "coincidence" that the Martins are active in Florida Democratic politics, just as it was a "coincidence" that they gave the tape to a Democrat on the Ethics Committee instead of the Independent Counsel or the Republican committee chair. Perhaps it was also an "accident" that McDermott gave the information to the press, rather than discussing the tape with his fellow committee members.

And the upshot on the lawsuit, which for some reason, didn't get anywhere near as much press as the original leak, is even better:


Appeals Court rules against McDermott in taped call dispute
By Matthew Daly
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON, D.C. A federal appeals court ruled today that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.

In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

McDermott leaked a tape of a 1996 cell phone call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to The New York Times and other news organizations.

The call included discussion by Gingrich, R-Ga., and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner, R-Ohio, was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.

A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have "a huge chilling effect" on reporters and newsmakers alike.

Lawyers for 18 news organizations including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post filed a brief backing McDermott.

But Boehner's lawyers said McDermott's actions were clearly illegal.

By leaking the tape McDermott "chilled the free speech of others," namely Boehner and Gingrich, lawyer Michael Carvin said following a court hearing in November.

A spokesman for McDermott said today the congressman had just received the ruling and was studying it. A spokesman for Boehner could not be reached immediately.

Copyright 2006 The Seattle Times Company http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002895236_webmcdermott28.html

fettpett
06-11-2011, 04:06 PM
and McDermett is still in office...i don't get it...(I do, on the grounds they are dems)

FDK
06-12-2011, 09:57 AM
McDermott (a.k.a. "Baghdad Jim") also went to Iraq before the war to defend Saddam.