Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear

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

Suck on that one, Luskin.

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?

Magnus, it depends on the state. In some, both must consent. In others only one. qdragon is, however, Canadian so Casey, as usual, is one wrong-ass dipshit.

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

Under the laws of California Luskin is arguably right.

Two party aware versus one party aware of recording state.

Two party rule tends to trump one party in conflict of laws cases, particularly when California is involved.

With an international contact, the Canadian and U.S. codes are one party so no crime.

but

Little Lawyer Luskin is so weak on the current laws of his own state he doesn't know for sure and tries to bluff his way through it.

The legal term of art for this strategy is bullshitting.

For somebody who brags incessantly about his professional acumen this is some high grade douchebaggery.

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.

Under the laws of California Luskin is arguably right.

Did Casey say he was in California at some point? I figured he was at the DI office, in Seattle. (Casey doesn't have a license to practice law in Washington State, AFAIK.)

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

Of course the more important issue is the WTF factor in that call.

"Hello Attorney X? My name is Anonlulz666 and I would like some privileged information about you and your client."

*click*

How does Luskin not get that?

Why the hell does he still have a job?

Prometheus-- "Hello Attorney X? My name is Anonlulz666 and I would like some privileged information about you and your client. ALSO, IM A YOUTUBER."
WTF, CaseyTARD?? LOL! AAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Bwhahahaha

Luskin has a DC exchange.

No Crime.

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.

A Lurker is on to something, suggesting that the DMCA notice should be posted in the spot where the removed content had been.

Wouldn't it be freakin' AWESOME if doing that was required to take advantage of the safe harbor provision?

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 âone 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.â 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 partyâs 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 âif the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.â 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 ârecordâ and âinterceptâ do not encompass the meaning of divulge.

Whether a communication is considered âprivateâ 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).

On the other hand, he's a juvenile, and handicapped, so I doubt he will get in any trouble even if the law applies to those outside the state. Just found out he's in Canada, too. I doubt they would extradite him. This kid could could start distributing MP3s on the internet and the RIAA wouldn't be able to touch him.

I see Willy-wally is still trolling!

http://www.caseyluskin.com/facts.htm

"Greetings. My name is Casey Luskin. Thanks for visiting my website. I am an attorney who works in Seattle, Washington as Program Officer in Public Policy & Legal Affairs with The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture."

He's a Program Offer in legal affairs, but doesn't know about the false DMCA claims. Okay. Jebus weeps.

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

Casey is telling teh truth!!! The DI didn't file a false "DCMA" report!! (friggin' dumb ass)

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

Wallace, could you repeat that? I can't understand you with all those dicks in your mouth.

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

I'm pretty sure that "I forgive you" is actionable in several states. He can't sue over the recording now.