As we discussed earlier, ACORN has decided to move forward with a lawsuit against the independent filmmakers who showed its employees engaged in potentially unlawful conduct. While insisting that it is terribly sorry for the actions of its employees, ACORN is pursuing the people who forced the misconduct into the open: filmmakers James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. It is curious method of contrition but ACORN is seeking massive damages for nonconsensual surveillance.
ACORN is itself under criminal investigation in New York and experiencing a cascading impact by agencies and organizations severing ties with the organization. There is also a bill in Congress to prohibit contracts by the government with ACORN, though that bill raises serious constitutional questions.
The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore, also names Breitbart.com, which is run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart and posted the videos. Breitbart released five similar videos that O’Keefe and Giles recorded in ACORN offices in Washington, D.C.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; San Bernadino, Calif., and San Diego, as well as the Baltimore office.
ACORN has fired the two employees shown in the recent undercover video by filmmaker James O’Keefe of Veritas Visuals— showing the staffers advising a faux pimp and prostitute (here) on how to get federal assistance and lie on federal forms. Now, however, it is threatening legal action in what would be part of a trend of cases involving companies and organizations suing investigative reporters and filmmakers.
In this video, Four ACORN workers appear involved in potential criminal conduct:
ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis immediately went on the offensive and threatened legal action:
“It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ O’Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was — our lawyers believe a felony — and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators.”
In bringing the lawsuit, ACORN joins a rather ignoble group of businesses seeking to sue journalists and filmmakers for uncovering improper conduct:
In Food Lion v. ABC , a store was shown in an undercover segment engaging in unsanitary techniques and accused Food Lion of selling rat-gnawed cheese, meat that was past its expiration date and old fish and ham that had been washed in bleach to kill the smell. Food lion denied the allegations and sued ABC for trespass. A jury ruled against ABC and awarded Food Lion punitive damages for the investigation involving ABC journalists lying on their application forms and assumed positions under false pretenses. (here). The Fourth Circuit however wiped out the punitive damage award while upholding the verdicts of trespass and breach of loyalty with awards of only $1 for each.
This case would come closest to a case out of the Seventh Circuit. Judge Richard Posner wrote the decision in Desnick v. ABCwhere investigative reporters went undercover in 1993 to show that employees of the Desnick eye clinic had tampered with the clinic’s auto-refractor, the machine used to detect cataracts so that the machine produced false diagnoses to find cataracts (and require procedures). The court rejected wiretapping claims (based on the state’s one-party consent rules) as well as trespass and defamation claims. On trespass, the court noted that the reporters were allowed into areas open to new patients. Posner relied on the consent to the entry to negate the trespass claim even when the entrant “has intentions that if known to the owner of the property would cause him . . . to revoke his consent.”
That seems quite close to the ACORN case. However, Maryland does require the consent of all parties, which is a difference with the Illinois case. They are focusing on the nonconsensual surveillance aspect. Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-402(a) and 10-410, requires two party consent to all electronic surveillance. It allows for both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
ACORN attorney Arthur Schwartz insists that the videos were “clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN, the nation’s largest grassroots organizer of low-income and minority Americans.” Well, it didn’t seem to take much to produce this self-inflicted wound. Moreover, ACORN’s tactics have been controversial for years and the organization has been the subject of continual allegations of improper and potential criminal conduct.
For her part, while trying to destroy the filmmakers who disclosed the misconduct, Lewis insists “[w]e were just as shocked and horrified as the American public was. I will not tolerate such behavior. It is incumbent upon me and my board to set things straight.”
The decision of ACORN to aggressively pursue the filmmakers is, in my view, a mistake and evidence of continued poor judgment by the organization’s leadership. These filmmakers may be properly prosecuted under state law and such charges are being contemplated, here. However, ACORN should confine its role to that of a witness and focus on cleaning up its tarnished organization.
I’m afraid your concern for the legitimacy of some particular or any religion fails the test of empiricism. Being of the opinion that people who worship God aren’t acting rationally or benefiting themselves by worshiping that God rather than any other is not “bigotry”, it is honesty.
And harboring a rather venomous vehemence for the Catholic Church in regards to the enabling of unspeakable crimes, well, that might not be rational, but I would have to consider it normal, at least for those directly affected.
Sorry, you don’t get to conflate even outright “hatred” of any particular or all religion with racism as just two forms of “bigotry”. But at least now I understand why you tried to claim that anti-Catholics show prejudice against Jews. It certainly makes it convenient to imagine a ‘sliding scale’ of bigotry that connects racial mistrust with religious distaste. You wouldn’t perhaps be a Catholic trying to paint himself a victim, would you, billy?
Be careful with the “loaded” words you use, those very words will come back to hang you…
Just bring it back to yourself. Own the experience, just like your friend you despise at ACORN…
thanks, btw; it was fun having the chance to vent a little
The same opinions can be levied against you. If you feel Catholics are stupid or foolish because of how they live or worship, yes it is an observation, a “bigoted” observation, because you choose not to find value in them irrespective of the differences in value systems. This why we have bigots. What you call an opinion, I call bigotry. Because behind your opinion is contempt and scorn. Correct. That’s what makes you a bigot…….
Are you saying you are not inclined to like me? I’m deeply offended, clutching my pearls, you will find me on the feinting couch!
Seriously, billy, I’m not trying to score any mythical points, I’m just trying to be both right and slightly amusing. And I’ve been online for over twenty years, so you aren’t being instructive, for what its worth.
Well said Tmax PA, well said… you are right.
Having the last word and adroilty making your opponent look foolish is not the most important or relevant thing. Being respectful and finding value in a person you are not inclined to like, is an even greater achievement than winning an argument that nobody will remember tomorrow, except you. Besting a foe is not always the “best” thing…
Not sometimes, billy, always. It is called “projection”. If you despise it, you embody it.
There are people who are bigoted against Jews and that means… what?
As for what you claim is ‘vitriol’ aimed at Catholics, it sounds more like simple observations or opinions.
Where the real problem in your comment comes is when you say “These same irrational people hate Jews and mock them to scorn.” I’ve never known that to be the case, frankly.
Furthermore, I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am trying to help you think. Sometimes the “value systems” we despise in others is only a muddied reflection of ourselves.
I enjoy your posts Tmax. You are thoughtful and you don’t insult. A lot of things can be accomplished in this world when we decide to be civil and respectful even when we disagree and have a spirited argument. This is where real “virtue” will be achieved. How we treat our fellow man……
Billy;
I’m not sure where you can find it on the Internet, but there is a simple test that you can perform. Now, I can’t force you to believe the results of this test or their interpretation. Nevertheless, it simply demonstrates that mistrusting people of a particular race (this is socially cued, so it isn’t even necessarily an ‘other’ race) is something we can overcome, but not something we can wish away.
Now as to whether it “must be” racism in This Particular Case for Every Individual, I can only say that I am not accusing them of a crime, but of an attitude, so unless they can show some thin reed at least of evidence that it is otherwise, I feel content simply declaring that it indeed must be racism that causes this knee-jerk distrust of ACORN, as it represents an Urban (read black, though it is not itself in any way racist) success story.
Like I said, if they simply suspected this vast network of being corrupt, it isn’t clandestine Punk’d videos they’d use as evidence. KBR electrocuted American servicemen in a warzone, killing them while they showered thanks to rank incompetence. On a no-bid contract that immunized them from liability. If you think the fact that non-profit community organizers might somehow help a few street criminals scam the government out of some non-existent “welfare checks” is a scandal that should call into question the entire organization, you’re being racist.
Now someone could always come back at me with “well, I can prove you wrong, because I used to think they were the cause of the mortgage collapse and then I learned they weren’t and it was that not racism which caused me to suspect them.”
And that person would, indeed, get whatever divine special exemption is necessary to continue believing they weren’t being racist to believe such a thing to begin with.
Think, think about the point I am illustrating……
TmaxPA, I agree with you in theory. I hate racism to, in all its’ disgusting forms. I also despise “bigots”, you know the ones, they “hate” Catholics or Jews! Have you ever listened to some of their vitriol and diatribe? You know the ones who think all Catholic priests are pedohiles and mock people who worship, and think anyone who listens to the teachings of Rome is either a moron or someone to be reviled and looked upon with scorn! These same irrational people hate Jews and mock them to scorn. Surely you must have encountered some of these close-minded bigots, in all your worldy travel? They are about on the same level as these racists you abhor..
They still may not know they are racist, you still might not be convinced they are racist. But that they are racist simply can’t be denied.
Did you notice “anonymously yours” wondering why ACORN would invite discovery in a civil trial? Were you unaware that ACORN has been investigated and audited and sometimes even indicted (by Karl Rove’s US Attorneys, hand picked to spare no expense to destroy such a successful liberal endeavor) for all the DECADES they have been helping the poor find housing (and advocating against sub-prime!) and register to vote (and turning in all suspected fraudulent registrations as required by law!) and organize their communities to better their circumstances, boot-strap style.
But, hey, they’re black, and they aren’t to be trusted.
How do you know this person has a “mistrust” of black people? Did you ask them this? Or, are you only speculating, because it gives you ammo to argue with….
Possibly they feel Acorn is not on the-up-and-up, because they feel some misconduct or impropriety took place behind closed doors. Something to think about, eh..
Okay, Okay, I feel you! Also, you presented your argument a lot better. They still may not be racist though..
I called them racist because there doesn’t appear to be any other rational explanation for their behavior, not because of any personal animosity.
I’ve noticed, particularly in the last couple years (gee I wonder why that is?) that when you point out that someone is being racist, they always react identically: you have insulted them. You have impugned their integrity, branded them as hateful, and attempted to inhibit their free speech and/or free will.
When really all you’ve done is point out that it is noticeable to others that their behavior is being motivated by a knee-jerk distrust of black people. As if ACORN is to be less trusted than the Heritage Foundation or the fucking John Birch Society, and represents (unlike these outstanding endeavors meant only to benevolently aid society and good government) an insidious plot to force the nation to conform to their ideological plans.
Talk about pegging the irony meter.
Yea, OK, I’ll say it again, and hopefully it might someday get through. If you are concerned ACORN isn’t on the up-and-up, you ARE a racist. If you don’t believe me, well, that is because you are racist and in denial. Now your racism might be caused by ignorance and/or a lot of misinformation, thanks to the previously described right wing noise machine. I am not accusing anyone of bigotry or ill intent when I point out that IF YOU MISTRUST ACORN IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE RACIST.