The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Is This Legal?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1064
Page 1 of 1

Author:  FarSky [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Is This Legal?

If so, that's terrifying. Well, even if it's not, it's still terrifying, but moreso if it's legal. What useless assholes. And what terrible Photoshoppers.

Any defenders? I'm curious. Also, I spoilered the poster 'cause it's huge.

Quote:
Liberal Group Puts Bounty on Head of Chamber of Commerce CEO

Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue is a wanted man -- at least according to the liberal activist group that's put a de facto bounty on his head.

Spoiler:
Image


A network of liberal groups known as Velvet Revolution started an ad campaign offering $200,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the man whose trade organization has become a thorn in the side of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

The group is not leveling any specific charges of criminal behavior. Rather, it is casting a wide net, fishing for any whistleblowers from Donohue's past who might come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. The campaign against the Chamber was launched in response to the group's opposition to climate change legislation and health care reform, and its plan to spend $100 million lobbying against these and other initiatives.

"On every issue, the Chamber is kind of the lead corporate advocate for the status quo," said Kevin Zeese, a lawyer who sits on the board for Velvet Revolution, calling Donohue a "knee-jerk reactionary" and the Chamber a "right-wing extremist group."

The Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, decried the ad campaign and threatened possible legal action.

"The media should be following the money trail behind this scurrilous group instead of giving credence to its outrageous tactics -- and we are considering legal options with the ad," spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said.

The Chamber has already taken a lot of heat from the White House. Top aides tried to neutralize the group earlier in the year by doing an end-run around the organization and dealing directly with members, as some big companies, like Apple, peeled off from the Chamber due to disagreements over issues like climate change.

The organization was also not invited to Obama's jobs forum in Washington last week.

But Zeese said the White House has nothing to do with the bounty on Donohue.

"It's individual donors. We have no connection to the White House or unions or anything like that," he said.

Velvet Revolution launched the StoptheChamber campaign in October and started offering a bounty for information on Donohue a month later. A $100,000 reward was increased to $200,000 early this month, thanks to what Zeese called a "handful of larger donors" whom he would not identify.

A full-page print ad that looks like a "wanted" poster out of the wild West began to run in the Washington City Paper this week. It features a head shot of Donohue and offers a tip line for "insiders and whistleblowers possessing information not already in the public domain."

The tip line is live. When FoxNews.com called, the operator asked for "criminal" information about Donohue.

Zeese said that a handful of tips have come in which the group is "pursuing."

He said the hope is to forward any damaging information onto the Justice Department or Congress for further investigation.

Author:  Lydiaa [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

You can argue for defamation based on the wanted poster as it portrays a negative image.

You only have the right not to incriminate yourself; you can't stop people from wanting to purchase incriminating evidence, or selling them.

Then there’s the information provided and how it was attained. Anything under a confidentiality agreement can not be supplied, so on and so forth.

Author:  FarSky [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's certainly unethical to the extreme. But I would assume that if your organization were to undertake something like this, you'd run it by your lawyers first, so I'm guessing it's legal, though I'd imagine it's skirting the boundaries of legality.

Author:  Hopwin [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I was at a pet store today and there was a poster up advertising a $5000 reward for identifying dog fighting rings. I don't see how this is any different.

Author:  FarSky [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't know, I think what's rankling me is that something like a tip line for, say, dogfighting rings starts with the fact that dogfighting is illegal, and any information about that activity is being gathered to stop it. Whereas this seems to originate from the idea that "we want this particular man to have done something illegal at some point in his life regardless of its relevancy to the topic at hand because we disagree with him, and we'll manufacture a narrative to fit that preconceived notion in order to get our way."

My brain's not firing on all cylinders right now (yay NyQuil!) so I may not be articulating the distinction I'm drawing in my head properly. I can see the logic that this kind of act follows, it just seems somewhat like crack'd logic to me.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is This Legal?

I'm not familiar with this individual or his alleged crimes. Thus I won't comment on the necessity of it. There might be civil matters involved (slander, defamation of character and the like) but as far as a criminal matter I'm not really sure.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is This Legal?

Rorinthas wrote:
I'm not familiar with this individual or his alleged crimes. Thus I won't comment on the necessity of it. There might be civil matters involved (slander, defamation of character and the like) but as far as a criminal matter I'm not really sure.

The quoted article lays out who he is pretty clearly. He's the head of an organization committed to spending not insignificant cash lobbying against healthcare reform and reactionary policy motivated by HIGCC fears. They've "cast a wide net" as to what kind of crimes he may have been involved in (and are thus seeking evidence of), so it really sounds as if they're trying to create a smear campaign to make him politically toxic as a means of disarming this lobbying group.

Author:  Hopwin [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

FarSky wrote:
My brain's not firing on all cylinders right now (yay NyQuil!) so I may not be articulating the distinction I'm drawing in my head properly. I can see the logic that this kind of act follows, it just seems somewhat like crack'd logic to me.

The NyQuil isn't that strong, I get your point.

I would just say that the distinction lies in the eye of the reader. For example that poster was at the pet store, I have not seem a comparable one at the police station, grocery store or gas station. There is no evidence that anyone going to a pet store is more or less likely to be aware dogfighting or that a dogfighter would be more likely to go there. The group offering the reward is doing the same thing as the group above, fishing for crimes amongst a targetted population.

Author:  Aegnor [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Hopwin wrote:
FarSky wrote:
I would just say that the distinction lies in the eye of the reader. For example that poster was at the pet store, I have not seem a comparable one at the police station, grocery store or gas station. There is no evidence that anyone going to a pet store is more or less likely to be aware dogfighting or that a dogfighter would be more likely to go there. The group offering the reward is doing the same thing as the group above, fishing for crimes amongst a targetted population.


Not really. There is a significant difference between the two. If that poster was offering $5000 for information that Michael Vick was fighting dogs again, then it would be similar. But really, its even worse than that, since there is no evidence he's committed any crimes, even in his past.

This is a matter of "We don't like your political views, and so we are going to pay a lot of money to anyone that can find dirt on you."

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is This Legal?

As far as I know it's legal from a criminal standpoint.

It might, however, be viewed as encouraging fabrication of information to collect the reward. If hat were to happen they might possibly be liable to a civil action, but I'm not sure.

Author:  Monte [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

FarSky wrote:
It's certainly unethical to the extreme. But I would assume that if your organization were to undertake something like this, you'd run it by your lawyers first, so I'm guessing it's legal, though I'd imagine it's skirting the boundaries of legality.


Paying for information is skirting the law? I don't think so. Hell, reporters pay off sources all the time. So do P.I's, bail bondsmen, and bounty hunters. Frankly, there was a multimillion dollar effort to try and find *anything* to tag on the Clintons when they were in office. They tried all kinds of crap from land deals to even murder. None of it stuck, until they found a blue dress.

I'm actually impressed they're doing this in such an open manner. I don't know that I'd call this a price on his head, either. Looking for criminal wrongdoing is a far cry from trying to hire an assassin.

If *this* is unethical, hacking a scientist's emails in order to misrepresent their contents to the masses is a lot worse, and no one seems to have a problem with the people that committed that crime.

Author:  FarSky [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Two wrongs? Don't make a right.

There is a pretty big difference in fishing for specific information about someone for suspected wrongdoing and an attempt at canvassing someone's entire life with paid character assassination to sideline a political opponent. Are you arguing that since this group is just looking to have this man arrested and isn't putting out a legitimate hit out on this guy then their actions are laudable?

And for the record, hacking anyone's email is unethical and reprehensible, and the contents of the emails have been wildly exaggerated and taken out of context, being used as fodder for those whose criticism of global warming has become the same kind of "religion" that they accuse global warming believers to be adherent.

But that has to do with this what, exactly?

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
FarSky wrote:
It's certainly unethical to the extreme. But I would assume that if your organization were to undertake something like this, you'd run it by your lawyers first, so I'm guessing it's legal, though I'd imagine it's skirting the boundaries of legality.


Paying for information is skirting the law? I don't think so. Hell, reporters pay off sources all the time. So do P.I's, bail bondsmen, and bounty hunters. Frankly, there was a multimillion dollar effort to try and find *anything* to tag on the Clintons when they were in office. They tried all kinds of crap from land deals to even murder. None of it stuck, until they found a blue dress.

I'm actually impressed they're doing this in such an open manner. I don't know that I'd call this a price on his head, either. Looking for criminal wrongdoing is a far cry from trying to hire an assassin.

If *this* is unethical, hacking a scientist's emails in order to misrepresent their contents to the masses is a lot worse, and no one seems to have a problem with the people that committed that crime.


Paying for information is not unethical.

Creating a financial incentive to fabricate information that would harm another person is. If this group could establish some reason they think that incriminating information exists they'd be on much firmer ethical ground, but right now they're just exposing themselves as desperate and unprincipled.

Author:  Screeling [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
hacking a scientist's emails in order to misrepresent their contents to the masses is a lot worse, and no one seems to have a problem with the people that committed that crime.

Thats because nobody misrepresented anything in those e-mails. They posted the e-mails as they were found and people are rightfully questioning the contents.

Author:  Müs [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
and no one seems to have a problem with the people that committed that crime.


Its only really that bad a crime to you because it handily destroys a central pillar of your worldview.

Author:  Aegnor [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Monty...someone hacking into a university computer system and making some emails public is not really national/international news. Yes it is a crime of course, but we wouldn't be talking about it if it were some other university with emails of scientists talking about the tensile strength of carbon fibers, or the mating habits of microscopic marine life.

So you are yelling "This is illegal! This is illegal!". To which I say "Duh!". But its really missing the point. The news isn't the crime of stealing the emails (which is really a minor crime on the international scale) it is the contents of those emails which is the news, which is totally separate from the method with which they were obtained.

Author:  Stathol [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Any chance we could get the OP image replaced with this one? That thing is impossible to read on a normally sized monitor.

Image

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

It sounds legal, as they aren't trying to entrap him or anything.

I think he may have a lawsuit, though, if he can show this has caused him personal harm and/or he can show this results in significant harassment.

I think I'd sue for, say, $200,000.

Author:  Ladas [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

I can only imagine the howls of anger if a group did this for Pelosi, Reid or Obama.

Author:  Screeling [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hey now, there's an idea. I'll chip in $50 if somebody wants to get that started. :)

Author:  Rafael [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
I can only imagine the howls of anger if a group did this for Pelosi, Reid or Obama.


I got one for you: Nancy Pelosi has stolen property formerly owned (and also stolen) by Hannibal Lector and Thomas Hewitt.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
It sounds legal, as they aren't trying to entrap him or anything.

I think he may have a lawsuit, though, if he can show this has caused him personal harm and/or he can show this results in significant harassment.

I think I'd sue for, say, $200,000.

Nah. The suit should be for >$200,000 -- the group offering $200,000 obviously thinks that the information is worth at least this much; therefore, the potential harm to him is greater than what they think is a worthy reward. Especially since it's not an offer for the *first* person to come forward with such information, so they must be prepared for (and think the damage to his reputation would be worth more than) multiple such rewards.

This is easily a multi-million dollar defamation suit.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/