5 ms·

"Now, Glick - a criminal defense attorney, according to his lawyer" I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't even corrobo

"Now, Glick - a criminal defense attorney, according to his lawyer" I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't even corroborate this simple piece of information? Or is it something I'm missing?

warfangle 17y ago
Because it's a comment on an ongoing case, the newspaper probably attempted to corroborate the fact with Glick himself, but he probably referred them to his lawyer. It's the smart thing to do, even (some might say especially) if you're a lawyer yourself. Comments on an ongoing case should go through the lawyers involved instead of the individuals involved: they have to be very careful about what they say so as not to tank the case.
- ilamont 17y ago
  I noticed that too. But it's not hard to verify his occupation, or at least that he used to practice law, either through court documents, LexisNexis, or newspaper archives. One other thing that came up last night on the local public radio station: They interviewed someone from the ACLU who said that if the camera was hidden during the taping, that would be a violation of the law (it wasn't, apparently). That made me wonder: If I had a Web cam on my computer facing outside the window, and it is not obvious that it is a camera (on an iMac it's impossible to see from more than a few feet away) and it captured such an arrest, could I be arrested for secretly taping the scene?
  - FahnRobier 17y ago
    Only if you are recording audio as well. The wiretapping law applies to secretly recording audio, not video. Edit: A good read, from the RCFP... http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
    - swixmix 17y ago
      It's not very secret if you're holding up a cell phone. And if that is decidedly secret, then nobody should care as long as the unlawful audio is removed before distribution. I use the term unlawful audio because only the personally identifying information should need to be censored/removed.
      - FahnRobier 17y ago
        I used "secret", probably shouldn't have. The article I referenced says that it varies by state, especially with regards to consent. Some states are single-party, some states require all party consent. But if you're on the street in public, you'd think everything is fair game... especially if you're a public servant. It's nice to see someone taking a stand and clearing it up (in one state at least).
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    One could argue that the camera was hidden inside of what appeared to be a cell phone.

warfangle 17y ago

Because it's a comment on an ongoing case, the newspaper probably attempted to corroborate the fact with Glick himself, but he probably referred them to his lawyer. It's the smart thing to do, even (some might say especially) if you're a lawyer yourself. Comments on an ongoing case should go through the lawyers involved instead of the individuals involved: they have to be very careful about what they say so as not to tank the case.

ilamont 17y ago
I noticed that too. But it's not hard to verify his occupation, or at least that he used to practice law, either through court documents, LexisNexis, or newspaper archives. One other thing that came up last night on the local public radio station: They interviewed someone from the ACLU who said that if the camera was hidden during the taping, that would be a violation of the law (it wasn't, apparently). That made me wonder: If I had a Web cam on my computer facing outside the window, and it is not obvious that it is a camera (on an iMac it's impossible to see from more than a few feet away) and it captured such an arrest, could I be arrested for secretly taping the scene?
- FahnRobier 17y ago
  Only if you are recording audio as well. The wiretapping law applies to secretly recording audio, not video. Edit: A good read, from the RCFP... http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
  - swixmix 17y ago
    It's not very secret if you're holding up a cell phone. And if that is decidedly secret, then nobody should care as long as the unlawful audio is removed before distribution. I use the term unlawful audio because only the personally identifying information should need to be censored/removed.
    - FahnRobier 17y ago
      I used "secret", probably shouldn't have. The article I referenced says that it varies by state, especially with regards to consent. Some states are single-party, some states require all party consent. But if you're on the street in public, you'd think everything is fair game... especially if you're a public servant. It's nice to see someone taking a stand and clearing it up (in one state at least).
- sokoloff 17y ago
  One could argue that the camera was hidden inside of what appeared to be a cell phone.