Okay so I went here to read about how hypocritical MSNBC is regarding the brilliant ACORN stings over at BigGovernment.com and of course, resident dickhead Chapoutier has to start in on how the filmmakers of the sting broke Maryland laws, and of course…

chapoutier said:

Expecting a resaonable expectation of privacy while counseling your client on illegal activity?

Look at the law and tell me if there is any exception based upon the content of the conversation. There is not, unless the person intercepting is a law officer in an investigation.

Do I want to see the filmmakers prosecuted? No. Certainly not. But they probably did break the law.

Chap, I’m not so sure the location they were in created a situation where privacy was expected. Anyone can walk in or out of the ACORN offices (such as a pimp and his hooker) and if I recall correctly, the door to the room they were sitting in was open. In one video, though it may have been in NY, I believe a child could be plainly heard. I’d have to go back and watch the video again but I don’t believe these were closed door meetings and as such may in fact not meet reasonable expectations of privacy.

Tonight there is another video scheduled to be released – I expect it to be along the same lines. I also expect the last video to be one of the Chicago office. What better way to wrap up a series of hits to a corrupt organization, than a kick to the head.

Get your popcorn ready, this should be fun to watch.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986)

I think if i had to represent these guys, I’d argue that it’s a reverse version of this case. If a salesman in a private home has no expectation of privacy, surely someone working for an organization that gives advice to the public has no expectation of privacy when they give advice in their (open to the public) offices.

Body was fired by the hospital for taping conversations and sued over being fired. The ruling said he was lawfully fired, since taping conversations is illegal. I would make the distinction that in general it’s illegal but not so clear cut in the ACORN case.

Anyway–do you have a preference for such things? Bollinger? Dom Perignon? Veuve Clicquot?

I answered that, i think. My favorite vintage is Krug. It is earthier and yeastier than some others. Almost like smelling a bakery. But it is super expensive. I haven’t had it in years.

Charles Heidseick is very good, and more affordable, as well.

Anyway–do you have a preference for such things? Bollinger? Dom Perignon? Veuve Clicquot?

so, chap, you never did answer me regarding the choice of champagne…

What question? Where?

I’m no more whiny with my comment here than your comments about Rush Limbaugh comparing Obama’s iconography to Hitler’s was whiny.

Do you know what the difference between substance and procedure is? You may disagree with how I feel about the use of Hitler rhetoric. But at least both our opinions on the matter are ones that are dealing with the substance of a topic. You are complaining here about procedure. And not even a really good argument about it. Whatever we are discussing with respect to the filmmakers is well within the bounds of germaneness to this post by MM.

I’m not pretending to be MM’s moderator, nor do I want to be, and I don’t know her from anybody else. I’m just tired of topics that look bad for teh Left somehow moving into a discussion of some details that manage to take the light away from what’s actually wrong.

Then continue to have your conversation. No one is stopping you, are they? It is actually possible for a thread to have multiple trains of thought going on at once. It’s why the “quote” function is so handy and why people use it.