erv

Thanks for the link and the kind words and yeah! This kid was great!

Posted by: J-Dog | July 9, 2009 6:05 PM

I don't have much knowledge of American law, but my understanding was that recording a conversation with someone without their knowledge would be illegal. Can someone clear this up for me?

Posted by: Magnus | July 9, 2009 6:37 PM

Casey did the Christlike thing and forgave him. Awww, how generous and sweet of the Disco-turd.

Posted by: JD | July 9, 2009 7:30 PM

q-dragon's in Canada; Casey (I assume) is in Washington. That means q-dragon can legally record the conversation without Casey's permission, but Casey can't record it without q-dragon's permission.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 9, 2009 8:35 PM

Thanks for the link. I thought you might get a kick out of that. :-)

Posted by: Stacy | July 9, 2009 8:43 PM

Is it possible to get a copy of the the DMCA notice that was sent to YouTube? If it has the name of someone from the Discovery Institute on it, the affair will be far more embarrassing than it is now and might even be legally actionable.

YouTube really should post them anyways. It would cut back the false filing if the real name and affiliation of the filer was automatically put on the YouTube page containing disputed video. Cockroaches don't like the light.

I however have little doubt that Luskin did not personally do the filing. He is not innocent on that account. If he in any way asked an employee, lawyer, lackee, sweetheart, etc. to do it or new in advance that they would do it and failed to object then he is guilty as all Hell. As others pointed out he does not answer the question about the DI's involvement. If he could deny the DI's guilt, he would.

If Luskin goes down, I am not sure how much difference it will make anyways. He can be replaced. If it could be shown that multiple DI people where in the know, it could be far more damaging to the actual organization. A year or two of disruption of the DI's activities would be enormously useful as any disruption of the activities to intimidate teachers from teaching science means that more kids will actually get some science.

I sure hope someone has talked to some real lawyers in this affair. If there is a realistic chance to hurt the DI, it needs to be exploited. Also we don't want anyone to hurt our side by doing something stupid. So if you play this kind of trick on a creationist: be damn sure that you are legally in the right before acting.

Posted by: a lurker | July 9, 2009 9:58 PM

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the boy with the speech impediment may be getting some dodgy legal advice. See Washington.

All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if “one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted.” In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.

A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Consent to recording of real-time conversation using online discussion software is implicit because participants know the conversations will be recorded on the other party’s computer. Washington v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations “if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.” Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4). Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4).

Statutory liability exists only for nonconsensual recording or intercepting, not divulging, of private conversations. Kearney v. Kearney. 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). The statutory terms “record” and “intercept” do not encompass the meaning of divulge.

Whether a communication is considered “private” under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002). The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006).

Posted by: William Wallace | July 10, 2009 12:05 AM

I see Willy-wally is still trolling!

Posted by: Rich | July 10, 2009 12:39 AM

Why don't you all leave Mr. Luskin alone!

You are so mean to me, I mean HIM, and just because he's a Christian you hate him! Well, being a Christian, and a douchebag. Well, maybe he DOES tell a little "fib" for The Baby Jesus now and then - is that so wrong?

But he forgives you all for making him a martyar and he wants you all to know that the Electrolisist will finish up his eyebrows as soon as the new heavey-duty machine gets delivered.
And then you'll all be sorry! You won't have my Unibrow to kick around anymore! I mean HIS eyebrows.

Yours In Christo-Fascism,

Lacey Buskin

Posted by: Lacey Buskin | July 10, 2009 9:17 AM

Fanks 4 stikin up 4 mez, Wee Willy. *smooch*

Posted by: Lacey Cuntskin | July 10, 2009 7:24 PM

I like Casey's "I forgive you," clearly meaning, "I condemn you." Usually condemning the person for finding out yet another sleazy thing he's done, or another lie he's told, of course.

Blaming others is the only thing that enables ID, though. They couldn't begin to tell their voluminous lies about science if they didn't first label and malign those who do science as "atheists," "materialists," or whatever else they imagine is morally annihilating.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2009 1:41 PM