tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post112259223059743464..comments2023-10-06T07:28:21.803-04:00Comments on Cuban-American Pundits: Essays from a Cuban-American Perspective: The Agony of DeFede, Part IIVal Prietohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15857729823069869008noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122663116172022912005-07-29T14:51:00.000-04:002005-07-29T14:51:00.000-04:00"Many states have reporter shield laws."Many state..."Many states have reporter shield laws."<BR/><BR/>Many states also have single party consent laws with regards audio taping. In fact 38 states do. If Defede were in one of those states (I know if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle) it wouldn't be a crime. You have to admit that the crime would have been worse if he publicized the content of the call which he didn't do.<BR/><BR/>And Val, I'm Henry Louis Gomezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03167391252653145914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122661771621373452005-07-29T14:29:00.000-04:002005-07-29T14:29:00.000-04:00conductior,I disagree. Off the record means "not f...conductior,<BR/><BR/>I disagree. Off the record means "not for publication" which, in and of itself, expressly implies an expecation of privacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122659630775710312005-07-29T13:53:00.000-04:002005-07-29T13:53:00.000-04:00Paxety, that's my point: "off-the-record" has noth...Paxety, that's my point: "off-the-record" has nothing to do with it.<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing whether or not he committed a crime even tough it's open to interpretation and apparently there has been at least one challenge to the statute that was found valid in appeals court. My comment about what he does with the recording was in response to the argument that he violated Teele's privacy - he did Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122654713403014342005-07-29T12:31:00.000-04:002005-07-29T12:31:00.000-04:00Keeping a source secret may or may not be improper...Keeping a source secret may or may not be improper. Many states have reporter shield laws. <BR/><BR/>If you're talking about Judith Miller, she's dealing with the federal courts - there is no federal shield law. She was brought in to testify - she refused - she was found in contempt of court. That's not a crime. It's not illegal.<BR/><BR/>However courts have the power to enforce their orders to Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122650296453630632005-07-29T11:18:00.000-04:002005-07-29T11:18:00.000-04:00We'll see what happens. Defede is supposedly goin...We'll see what happens. Defede is supposedly going to meet with the State Attorney's office. If he's guilty, we'll know soon enough.<BR/><BR/>Anyway Juan, you still don't address the double standard that exists when some media outlets and even the journalism establishment such as the journalism schools encourage reporters to keep their sources confidential even in the face of a subpoena. Henry Louis Gomezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03167391252653145914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122647765430114482005-07-29T10:36:00.000-04:002005-07-29T10:36:00.000-04:00The meaning of "off-the-record" is a moot point - ...The meaning of "off-the-record" is a moot point - Defede didn't publish anything. Conductor's point is that the Herald is being hypocritical when they say they fired Defede because he committed a crime. It is true that journalists do things that are technically crimes all the time and papers encourage them to do it. For example, the Herald has published investigative reports of drug deals where aAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122646564894773372005-07-29T10:16:00.000-04:002005-07-29T10:16:00.000-04:00Juan,The last paragraph is simply a quote from Edi...Juan,<BR/><BR/>The last paragraph is simply a quote from Editor & Publisher. I'm not an attorney and I couldn't tell you whether the exception applies. But it seems that at least some experts have doubts.<BR/><BR/>Val,<BR/><BR/>Off the record, doesn't neccessarily mean "stop recording." It just means "don't attribute this to me." If you were explaining a large complicated conspiracy to me butHenry Louis Gomezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03167391252653145914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122645904182620092005-07-29T10:05:00.000-04:002005-07-29T10:05:00.000-04:00Val, I agree with you. That's been one of my main ...Val, I agree with you. That's been one of my main points regarding this case.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01028084814683627950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122644853102535412005-07-29T09:47:00.000-04:002005-07-29T09:47:00.000-04:00"Off the record" means that it is not to be publis..."Off the record" means that it is not to be published in any way. I would think a "journalist" would know better; then again, DeFede was no journalist, he's a hack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122643460210973102005-07-29T09:24:00.000-04:002005-07-29T09:24:00.000-04:00Am I the only one that thinks "off the record" mea...Am I the only one that thinks "off the record" means "do not record?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122641939543956472005-07-29T08:58:00.000-04:002005-07-29T08:58:00.000-04:00"Reasonable expectation of privacy" for Teele obvi..."Reasonable expectation of privacy" for Teele obviously didn't apply to Defede, since he was talking to him in the first place. What it means in this case is that Teele would expect deFede not to make his comments public or share them with anyone else. But if Defede was taping the conversation for his own use -e.g. having a better recollection later, if Teele wanted to speak on the record- then Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122638682235072742005-07-29T08:04:00.000-04:002005-07-29T08:04:00.000-04:00The fact that Teele himself styated he was speakin...The fact that Teele himself styated he was speaking off the record proves there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12359982.post-1122635620980549642005-07-29T07:13:00.000-04:002005-07-29T07:13:00.000-04:00I don't know of anyone who really believes that in...I don't know of anyone who really believes that interpretation of the final paragraph. <BR/><BR/>It's usually interpreted to mean you don't need permission if the talking is recorded publically - a politician giving a public speech, someone standing on a public street screaming, people who are interviewed while a microphone or tape recorder is plainly stuffed in their face, the recording on a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com