5 ms·

then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?

by mapster 14y ago

cobrausn 14y ago
Seems to me institutions like Acorn that accept the public as part of their operation can't really prosecute a whistleblower as a trespasser. I'm not sure what a pseudo-private area is. What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing - imagine if they had trespassed, filmed, and found nothing illegal. If one of the farm workers were to film the video, there would have been no trespassing - it would constitute whistleblowing.
- itstriz 14y ago
  It is farm workers filming the videos. It just happens that these farm workers got hired as farm workers with the sole intention of filming the videos and did not disclose this intention to their employer. I'm not sure how it can be construed as trespassing to enter your place of employment, regardless of what your intentions are.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing Not exactly. What I'm saying is: 1) The Constitution only prohibits governments from restricting free speech; 2) What you do on other peoples' private property is rarely if ever considered free speech or free expression.
- mcguire 14y ago
  On the other hand, the consequences of trespassing are typically pretty mild and don't usually include being placed on a "terrorist registry".
mapster 14y ago
Following these heavy handed approaches to whistle-blowers and undercover reporting, then Acorn should be protected from terrorists using some 'intent to harm' argument. You see how insane this all becomes. I hope these legislations are challenged, tossed out, and in the meantime circumnavigated to reveal the barbaric treatment that occurs.

then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?

by mapster 14y ago

then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?

Seems to me institutions like Acorn that accept the public as part of their operation can't really prosecute a whistleblower as a trespasser. I'm not sure what a pseudo-private area is. What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing - imagine if they had trespassed, filmed, and found nothing illegal. If one of the farm workers were to film the video, there would have been no trespassing - it would constitute whistleblowing.

itstriz 14y ago
It is farm workers filming the videos. It just happens that these farm workers got hired as farm workers with the sole intention of filming the videos and did not disclose this intention to their employer. I'm not sure how it can be construed as trespassing to enter your place of employment, regardless of what your intentions are.
rayiner 14y ago
> What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing Not exactly. What I'm saying is: 1) The Constitution only prohibits governments from restricting free speech; 2) What you do on other peoples' private property is rarely if ever considered free speech or free expression.
mcguire 14y ago
On the other hand, the consequences of trespassing are typically pretty mild and don't usually include being placed on a "terrorist registry".

mapster 14y ago

Following these heavy handed approaches to whistle-blowers and undercover reporting, then Acorn should be protected from terrorists using some 'intent to harm' argument. You see how insane this all becomes. I hope these legislations are challenged, tossed out, and in the meantime circumnavigated to reveal the barbaric treatment that occurs.