APNewsBreak: ACORN Sues Filmmakers

[bytor2112]

"It's not in their interest to attack me and Hannah," O'Keefe told Fox News. "If they want to equate sex trafficking of young girls with videotaping someone without their consent, that's their moral prerogative, but that just shows you how low they are."

In the video, the pair claimed they planned to employ teenage girls from El Salvador as prostitutes, and one of the ACORN employees suggested that up to three of the girls could be claimed as dependents.

[talisyn]

LoL I'd donate to their defense fund. They went out and investigated, and uncovered pure gold dirt.

[NeuroTypical]

The more press ACORN gets, the better.

I'm still beside myself. The lady actually said "how educated do you want them", when the faux pimp was talking about having her underage girls read a book a week.

My tax dollars fund slavery. That is not acceptable.

LM

[bytor2112]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think ACORN was pretty stupid for suing.....that opens them up to civil discovery....I think (JAG?)

[hethathathears]

Acorn, Acorn, Acorn, Acorn....

Edited April 6, 2010 by hethathathears
Just Because

[Maxel]

Wow. The hypocrisy of it all is blinding. Unfortunately, that's the law in Maryland (about consent being required to record private conversations).

From the article:

The employees seen in the video, Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams, were fired after it was posted online. Thompson and Williams are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which says they suffered "extreme emotional distress with attendant physical symptoms and injury to their reputations."

"Extreme emotional distress with attendant physical symptoms"? Really? Are you serious? "Injury to their reputations"? I should freaking HOPE SO- they were happily planning to aid UNDERAGE PROSTITUTION!!

Some people make me mad.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, when someone catches you doing something horrible, and everyone finds out what you did, it's not really supposed to be a happy giggly moment.

It's called shame. The internal feelings of shame are given to us by God to help us know the difference between right and wrong. The shame provided by others is a way a healthy, moral society helps police itself.

So yeah, shame on you Tonja and Shera. You were doing horrible things. You ought to feel terrible, and your reputations should suffer injury.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think ACORN was pretty stupid for suing.....that opens them up to civil discovery....I think (JAG?)

(Are we still allowed to talk about this?)

I am not licensed in Maryland; so take all this for what you paid for it.

That said: Courts will usually try to keep civil discovery germane to the issues that determine the case. In this case (the court action, not the larger picture) the issue isn't what ACORN was doing; the issue is what O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart were doing.

Now, if O'Keefe et al. assert a defense of, say, "truth" or "public interest", and Maryland law recognizes those as valid defenses against the cause of action being pressed, then it would be justifiable to dig into ACORN's own activities in an effort to determine whether O'Keefe et al's actions were justified. But that's a pretty big "if". I have no idea what defenses Maryland law offers to such a suit.

The civil complaint is here. You'll notice they attribute damages also to Fox News for pretty much the same behavior as Breitbart, but Fox News is not a named defendant even though it has the deepest pockets. That's because this isn't really about the money--it's about destroying ACORN's opposition. Fox News and the Murdoch empire is too big to be bullied (as is, probably, Glenn Beck, whose name AFAIK is also conspicuously absent from the complaint), and ACORN knows it--so it's going after the small fish.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

(Are we still allowed to talk about this?)

The no political discussion is a bit ambiguous. I guess if Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Nancy Pelosi or Barrack Obama is not mentioned. Dunno.

[NeuroTypical]

The issues highlighted by the hidden cameras should be jointly denounced by everyone of all political spectrums. Govt money going to support an organization that advises people on how to cheat on taxes and run underage prostitution rings should make everyone mad, no matter who you voted for.

Those who wish to turn this into a political issue can go to ornery.com. I'm sure they've already done it.

LM

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm just going to qualify my earlier comments by saying that both law professors Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds (the latter of Instapundit) seem to think that this will open up ACORN to discovery. So, take that for what you will.

[Just_A_Guy]

People are starting to put two and two together with ACORN and last year's Minnesota Senate race (which Franken won by about 300 votes).

ACORN claimed to have registered 48,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1% were ineligible but cast ballots, or had ballots cast for them illegally, and survived the recount process ... that's 480 votes, almost certainly overwhelmingly cast for Franken. ...

[boyando]

(Are we still allowed to talk about this?)

I am not licensed in Maryland; so take all this for what you paid for it.

That said: Courts will usually try to keep civil discovery germane to the issues that determine the case. In this case (the court action, not the larger picture) the issue isn't what ACORN was doing; the issue is what O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart were doing.

Now, if O'Keefe et al. assert a defense of, say, "truth" or "public interest", and Maryland law recognizes those as valid defenses against the cause of action being pressed, then it would be justifiable to dig into ACORN's own activities in an effort to determine whether O'Keefe et al's actions were justified. But that's a pretty big "if". I have no idea what defenses Maryland law offers to such a suit.

The civil complaint is here. You'll notice they attribute damages also to Fox News for pretty much the same behavior as Breitbart, but Fox News is not a named defendant even though it has the deepest pockets. That's because this isn't really about the money--it's about destroying ACORN's opposition. Fox News and the Murdoch empire is too big to be bullied (as is, probably, Glenn Beck, whose name AFAIK is also conspicuously absent from the complaint), and ACORN knows it--so it's going after the small fish.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I wonder how Acorn is stretching this to be a private conversation, when there offices are clearly open to the public. As I understand it, there is no law against playing the video, just recording it. And only if it is a private conversation.

I'm sure I am wrong because no one has mentioned this defense.