<p>I just read the apology article posted 2 posts above this one. (CC: Why aren’t posts #'d any longer>!>!>!???)
I have not followed this issue all that closely, but I do think it is relevant that this article states: “Chretien secretly videotaped a conversation she had with Ferguson Center staff, in particular Donna Lake, an event coordinator at the Ferguson Center.” I rather hate the fact that privacy is so often disregarded nowadays, and people feel they have to almost ‘trap’ someone to get what they want. True integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one else is looking (let alone being recorded). Yes, free speech returns, but one is left with the feeling that someone had to use devious means to get it…which is disappointing to me. </p>
<p>Not devious. Not illegal. Totally acceptable. </p>
<p>This is not a “right to privacy” issue…not at all. The UA employee doesn’t have some “right to privacy” as to what she said to this young woman. No, not at all. </p>
<p>this is not a situation where a 3rd party recorded their conversation. that would be a violation. She was part of the conversation, so she’s within her rights to secretly record it. </p>
<p>Alabama is one of a few states which only requires that one of the parties be notified that the conversation is being recorded. In states which require both parties to consent to recording, there argument would likely focus on whether the recording was taken in a public place. This is why many 1-800 numbers will play a notice that your call may be monitored or recorded.</p>
<p>"Alabama is one of a few states which only requires that one of the parties be notified that the conversation is being recorded. "</p>
<p>@SEA_Tide</p>
<p>No…not one of “few states”. MOST states have this law. MOST states.</p>
<p>38 states PLUS Wash DC are One Party Consent States.</p>
<p>Fed law also allows One Party Consent </p>
<p>SEA_tide…maybe because your home state is one of the small number of states that requires 2 party notification, you thought that that was the norm. </p>
<p>And in the far fewer states that require 2 party notification, it isn’t required if there can’t be an expectation of privacy…public locations, others within hearing distance, etc. </p>
<p>want to further clarify: “this is not a situation where a 3rd party recorded their conversation. that would be a violation. She was part of the conversation, so she’s within her rights to secretly record it.” I meant to write…a 3rd party recorded their conversation without at least one knowing. The young lady could have had a 3rd person standing outside the door recording the conversation.</p>
<p>There is no reason to believe that what this young lady did was underhanded. She has the right to use whatever legal means available to protect her First Amendment Rights and to expose when those rights are being violated.</p>
<p>Lots to be disappointed about in this case. Disappointing to see and hear a UA administrator give a completely bogus reason to a student by completely misrepresenting the policy on displays at the Ferg. In hindsight, it appears that having evidence of that misrepresntation was helpful in forcing UA to do the right thing. I guess having one’s speech suppressed and being discriminated against makes some paranoid about those responsible for the suppression and discrimination, appropriately so in this case it appears.</p>
<p>We can’t have an “expectation of privacy” when we’re behaving badly at a school or business. The alums that were “behaving badly” in regards to the Greek system couldn’t depend on an “expectation of privacy” when they were being discriminatory. In that case, there were enough witnesses that a recording wouldn’t have been needed. The alum could have claimed that she “expected her words and demands to remain private,” but so what? There can’t be one in such a case. Nor can there be one when a person’s rights are being violated at a job or school.</p>
<p>One reason why Alabama and nearly 80% of the states in the US allow for One Party Recording is to expose discriminatory practices…otherwise nearly everything becomes “he said, she said.”</p>
<p>Do yall think there should be limits on the size of the “grotesque” displays? Just curious here. I am very pro free speech, but also think that it might be reasonable to prevent a group from displaying billboard size pictures in a public space. </p>
<p>That’s a hard call. What’s too grotesque? Images from the Holocaust? Maybe… but we need to see and remember.</p>
<p>My heart still breaks whenever I see the bloody dead body of Baby Baylee who was carried out after the Oklahoma City Bombing.<br>
<a href=“http://katiecouric.com/videos/the-firefighter-behind-the-most-iconic-photo-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/”>http://katiecouric.com/videos/the-firefighter-behind-the-most-iconic-photo-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/</a></p>
<p>New Crimson White article with picture of the reinstated display. Looks like the pictures are pretty small. One would have to pause and examine them…not analogous to a billboard at all.</p>
<p><a href=“Discovering Alabama series wins Emmy award - The Crimson White”>Discovering Alabama series wins Emmy award - The Crimson White;