This is a link post with no self text.
Video hosted by Reddit. open the media file (this client does not embed a player).
https://v.redd.it/f54zzk05ghvh1· v.redd.itRead-only view. Voting and replying are not offered because the app-only OAuth token cannot perform them.
threads deeper than 5 levels start collapsed
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Legal or not, what a silly topic to take issue with. Clearly this man has very little to offer his constituents.
And he’s wrong anyways
Two party laws protect private conversations lol I don’t think press gaggles apply
Right? What an idiot.
He is absolutely obfuscating the law (that he claims to understand so well…). A Public servant in a public space yelling at a group of people has no reasonable expectation of privacy…
And he has 10 to 15 cameras and phones visibly recording him.
Private conversation where there is an expectation of privacy.
Many also think this applies to like a conversation at a park and it doesn't.
Which is why flock cameras and traffic cameras and other public recording devices don't violate them.
Technically, though this depends on location, there are limits. If, for example, you and another person are talking in the park out of earshot of others, and someone from a distance uses a directional microphone to record you, that's not legal in most places.
The whole expectation of privacy is the key. If you and someone else are in a park, talking quietly, and it's a reasonable summary of the situation that you believe no one else can hear you two due to how quiet you are talking and far you are from anyone else, then it is your expectation that you have that privacy. Which is why a directional mic usually isn't legal. But if you were talking loudly near others and they simply turn on a recorder, there was no reasonable expectation on your part that others couldn't hear you.
This press event is clearly not a private conversation, the press wetr invited, the words being spoken aren't expected to be private; On the contrary, if you give a press conference, you're EXPECTING your words to be spread publicly. Anyone in earshot can hear what is being said, and he's a public official giving a press conference so there's literally no expectation on his part that he isn't being recorded.
edited
“Good thing this is a ten party gathering!”
/showerthoughts
If it did, you couldn’t have traffic cameras, Flock cameras, or a million other things in Maryland. Not to mention warning signs on literally every building warning if you entered you were agreeing to be recorded (which might also be insufficient).
(INAL) My understanding of "2 party" laws is that it is about informing all parties present that a recording is being made in a situation that would be thought of as private
It is about informing someone, not about consent
Every number you call that says "this call might be recorded" is all they need to do, they need to inform you, not get your consent. You've implied consent if you don't hang up.
Now if you're in a public place w/ lots of strangers (or reporters) around you, then you have ZERO expectation of privacy and anyone recording you doesn't need to inform that they're recording you
\---
I read years ago how Illinois cops used it for a long time until a judge smacked it down, hard
They arrested and charged a guy using a camcorder video taping them in public and claimed that while the video was legal, the audio was "wire tapping" and got away w/ it for a while, until a judge was like "absolutely not, on multiple levels, WTF to everyone involved in this" (not verbatim)
Public official speaking in a public building to the general public of recording indiclvidials = probably not private
Exactly. You can't stop someone from recording a freaking press conference, impromptu or not.
Is this the same stupid son of a bitch that started crying about the first amendment when his audience laughed in his face?
Yes. A US Congressman cited the first amendment b/c his constituents didn’t like what he was saying. 😂 I wonder if he could recite the first five words of 1A. Heck, even the first word.
He is wrong. The laws he is talking about refers to private conversations, not public ones.
And the law doesn’t allow for you to approve one party recording the exchange while prohibiting another. Once the expectation of privacy being gone is acknowledged, it’s gone for everyone that continues communicating.
Speaking as one of his constituents, indeed he has very little to offer.
If this "legislator" had any composure on his way into that room, he absolutely lost all of it by the time he left.
There's another clip from the same event where he gets laughed at, and tries to claim the people are suppressing his 1st amendment rights.
That was a way for him to get out of questions all wanted to ask. Create a problem and go with it. Coward POS
edited
So... He can just throw out the first amendment because "he's a legislator"?
Gee, who'd he learn that from?
Whatever people think should have been done during 1930s Germany should be happening now in the US.
The American people are letting the western world, and democracy down in a way that won't be easily fixed.
Shame on you, from a concerned Canadian
Democracy has proven to be very stubborn. I love that fact. I have faith that we are not too far gone, not by a long shot.
I'm also not saying things are good right now, for the record. They're not.
Considering we're still suffering from the Reagan administration, we might recover in 40 years.
He’s conflating public & private discourse. He’s a public figure, in public, discoursing with the public. He has no such protections in this situation.
“Do you know the law. You’re no lawyer.”
“Yeah actually, I’m a legislator.”
Lmao bro. That means ACTUALLY nothing. TIL being elected magically bestows upon you a J.D.
These motherfuckers staffers write the bills the majority of the time, and then send that to legal so legal can do a full review. He’s a glorified rubber stamp.
And as a caveat, obviously many legislators do understand law. But that takes years to acquire that skill set (or they were prior lawyers). Being a legislator means nothing by itself.
Edit: this makes it far worse once you find out he’s spent 12 years in the MD Senate and has been in the U.S. House since 2011.
edited
I am a lawyer.
The amount of legislation created by morons like this that later gets overturned because it's unconstitutional for any number of reasons is astounding.
And they keep doing it. And when it's overturned, they whine about "activist judges."
It's especially funny because the dude was literally whining about how his first amendment rights are being violated by the audience laughing at him during the debate.
These guys are the whiniest thin skinned little bitches this country has ever produced.
Why do you think their base jerks off to alpha male bullshit influencers? This is the majority of the Republican base you're describing
This guy is crashing out so hard I love to see it.
He also recently got pissed off when people laughed at him trying to blame the Democrats for rising gas prices. He called them rude and people laughed some more.
edited
This was literally right after that debate….
Keep giving him shit, people. I'm here for it.
Literal embodiment of this classic dril tweet:
What the heck is wrong with people in MD district 1 for supporting this clown. He's got a 13-14 point lead in the polls
Republicans either don’t pay attention, don’t care, or like that he is being a douche. In all 3 scenarios they’re just displaying the same stupidity we’ve come to associate with the right.
Being a two-party state doesn't mean both parties need to consent. It simply means both parties need to be aware that somebody is recording. Both parties are aware. This is legal.
His option if he doesn't want to be recorded, is to not talk.
It's actually even dumber than that.
This was a press conference. He invited the press to be there.
And even dumber than that, he only wanted the one reporter to not record. Viewpoint neutrality be damned.
I believe “reasonable expectation of privacy” is the test here, and a candidate for public office holding a presser has none.
Republican Voters: “This evasive guy who said horrible things, doesn’t understand the law and talks down to those he deems beneath him… thats the guy I want to lead us out of an economy that is stomping the non-rich”.
Seriously rRepublicans. Isn’t this the perfect time to just see what happens if you vote in one of those democrat “use tax dollars in helping the people” lunatics? It seriously can’t get any worse than an entire government of social media influencers.
He needs to be sued into oblivion for even attempting some bullshit like this.
You’d think a legislator would be familiar with the 1st amendment.
What a douche
He claims to “know the law” because “I’m a legislator I know the law really well” well chuckles as it turns out does NOT know the law at all. Typical for a Republican
So emotional
His skin is as thick as wax paper, and he’s a community leader?
Public building = public space, but with certain rules for behavior. Recording is not one of the rules.
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
2-party state laws are for private conversations. Also, if anyone present has consent to record a conversation, then everyone present does.
He is wrong and an idiot on so many levels.
Read-only thread. Why there is no reply box →