<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/668490</link>
		<description>Comments by DarcPrynce</description>
<item>
<title>Big Government : **BREAKING** ACORN Sues Hidden-Camera Filmmakers, Breitbart.com</title>
<link>http://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/09/23/breaking-acorn-sues-hidden-camera-filmmakers/#IDComment35720283</link>
<description>What the AP story fails to mention is the fact that - under the relevant Maryland law &amp;ndash; a party which has not consented to being recorded by another must show that he, she or they had &amp;ldquo;a reasonable expectation of privacy&amp;rdquo; at the time the recording was made for it to be considered unlawful by the courts.    According to the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press:    &amp;quot;State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker&amp;rsquo;s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman&amp;rsquo;s presentation in stranger&amp;rsquo;s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).&amp;quot;   For complete text concerning the relevant Maryland law. visit the website of the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html&lt;/a&gt;&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;    ACORN is a public organization, funded with taxpayer dollars and it is, therefor, difficult to understand how its employees can rightly claim that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy while serving in their capacity as paid community activists in a building open to the general public.    Furthermore, it is unclear how strictly the law applies to audio-inclusive videotape recordings, which may be treated differently than stand-alone audio recordings by the courts. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/09/23/breaking-acorn-sues-hidden-camera-filmmakers/#IDComment35720283</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>