If the Shield Law is still in effect then the taping was wrong by law the people doing the taping should suffer the consequences. Their action was wrong by law. You have to wonder what the people in the video were thinking though. They should have told them this all sounded illegal and made some calls and refused to speak. They probably should have been let go on that basis. Stossel sounds like he fell under the same jurisdiction of Shield Law. Why would you declining to testify be illegal if the taping was the illegal act in the first place? Weren't you given legal council not to testify?

In the end, the decision not to testify was mine. Thanks. Z

Z,

Would any of this fall under testimonial privledge since it was a private illegally taped conversation?? I am not a lawyer, but I know a good one...

Z, I think you made the right decision. I would have made the same decision.

I hope your weekend gets better.

Anything to defend a worthless, corrupt organization like Acorn. These people and their association with the President should be exposed by REAL journalists. Where are they? What happened to integrity journalism?

Hello, Thnaks for your comment. I am defending no one -- just sharing one of those stubborn things called a fact. This is a historical fact. But you do raise another issue: Is it okay to break the law to obtain such videotape? And are you willing to pay the price if you are breaking the law? What do you think? Z

It is my understanding that for this video to be illegal under Maryland law, the conversation must be considered private. In an open office, with doors open, the possiblility of someone walking in , could not be considered a private setting.

Not true, according to the case I am citing. The taping alledegly took place in a doctor's office during a first consultation, which would allow for both of the conditions you cited. And as both of us acknowledge with out comments, the notion of what is "open" and what is "private" leaves lots of room for interpretation. Besides, and this is just a small point that shows how tricky that could get: I think I saw on a buzzer on the ACORN office door, which would mean they had to be buzzed in and would lock behind them. Would that be private or open? Thanks. Z

I did find a Maryland law also called all party consent in which if more than two people are involved in the conversation then it is illegal to tape it. Wow this does become a sticky situation. I guess that is why journalists might need some protection by shield laws etc. This is very interesting. People on the blog could probably spend all day on it. I am intrigued.

Z-

It is also basically the same thing that Linda Tripp did. She recorded phone calls with Monica Lewinsky without her knowledge or permission, and yet, somehow Linda Tripp was not convicted of a crime that she definitely committed in Maryland.

-Rich

Wouldn't the conversation between a doctor and his "client" be considered privileged?

Curious if the Maryland statute has ever been challenged under the First Amendment? My guess is it probably wouldn't withstand scrutiny especially as it relates to the press. By the way, from a factual perspective how is this any different than the "reporters" transcribing the conversation after the fact and publishing it? If one of the reporters has a photographic memory then there is no difference. Why Maryland would create a felony to address something that is basically a way to avoid libel/slander/defamation type hearings is kind of silly. Also, Acorn is a quasi public organization since it accepts money from the government and apparently acts under government direction what sort of privacy does a public organization have? I forget what happened with the whole Linda Tripp/Monica Lewinsky thing which is why this stupid law is mostly remembered. Also, suppose only the Pimp and not the Prostitute in this case were aware the conversation was being recorded? Point being that the Acorns wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy with multiple parties present. That would change the expectation of privacy a bit wouldn't it?

haha... only in the state of Maryland would they focus on the prosecution of the journalists & not the low life's at Acorn. But to be honest I am not surprised one bit. It's par for the course in this country these days it seems.

David, I am surprised you did not comment on that ridiculous interview by Robin Roberts w/ Pres. Obama. The fact that she asked the Pres. how he was going to combat people like Glen Beck and didn't ask the real question of "why in the heck was this buffon Van Jones on your staff". David you are for the most part fair, but I call on you to be a media watchdog. It has gotten way, and I mean way out of hand.

It is my understanding that for this video to be illegal under Maryland law, the conversation must be considered private. In an open office, with doors open, the possiblility of someone walking in , could not be considered a private setting.

Not true, according to the case I am citing. The taping alledegly took place in a doctor's office during a first consultation, which would allow for both of the conditions you cited. And as both of us acknowledge with out comments, the notion of what is "open" and what is "private" leaves lots of room for interpretation. Besides, and this is just a small point that shows how tricky that could get: I think I saw on a buzzer on the ACORN office door, which would mean they had to be buzzed in and would lock behind them. Would that be private or open? Thanks. Z

Have you never heard of doctor patient confidentiality? That makes it private. You totally ignoring the facts of the criminal activity ACORN was willing to help hide is Helping. Looks like your picking side to me.

The bigger question here though as I see it. Why would FOX want to expose this and risk the fact that Mr. Stossel and his past with something similar could get brought up?

I am glad you did not agree to testify and probably were willing to suffer the consequences.

I really do not understand the "acorn" group that much. Never heard of them before this past election, but I just could have been missing something is all.

Hi Irene, This is not really a problem for Fox or Stossel. The real problem could be for the two young filmmakers -- they are the ones who broke the law. As for Stossel's case, it is dead and gone. It is history. And as you can see from this, there is much disagreement whether people who use hidden cameras and secretly tape to expose others are criminals or heroes. I hope that helps. But it is a really compliocated matter. Please see the comment I just wrote to Sherry T's comment. Thanks. Z

Whether or not the state's attorney pursues the case against the video the government should do a complete check of Acorn's records. And it's hard to believe in city where a 5 year old can be shot or a person is shot in broad daylight in the head on Northern Parkway they need to be wasting their time on a case of this nature.

If this Maryland law existed in every other state, wouldn't CBS's 60 Minutes have been shut down long ago? Mike Wallace would have been unemployed decades ago!

It's just another example of how crazy Maryland is. Jessamy can't even put any drug dealers & gang bangers in jail, yet she'd go after this case? Just plain crazy nutjob typical Maryland if she does this.

By the way, this is completely off-topic, but I believe Maryland still has sodomy on the books too as being illegal, so it just goes to show you how many bad laws Maryland has that infringe on the rights of people.

Could you even legally film the movie BORAT in Maryland or do MTV's PUNK'd? Obviously, in both cases, they pay or make deals with the people involved, but still it could potentially be illegal in Maryland.

Buzzer or not, I personally do NOT see ACORN as a PRIVATE place since it is partially government funded. To me, that makes it public by default.

And isn't the crime that was attempted to be committed (albeit in a phony way) far worse than the crime in the taping itself?

If Jessamy goes after this taping case, FOX NEWS will have a field day and make the State of Maryland look like a 3rd World Leftist Hugo Chavez-style Dictatorship!

Such laws exist in only 12 states. And "60 Minutes" abandoned the use of hidden camera recordings years ago. Don Hewitt, the creator of "60 Minutes" who recently died, felt the use of hidden cameras had become excessive and threatened to be a parody of what they had once accomplished for "60 Minutes." PS You are right about such productions as "Borat" not being possible without getting the permission of the people being filmed -- and often there is money involved. Every time I tape an interview, I have to ask permission. I do it automatically after many, many years. Actually, I think it is a good thing in terms of fairness to the person being recorded. Thanks. Z

Does this make a difference. Were these journalists doing the video taping, I think they were students. Should they be covered under the Shield Law. Another question. I guess in my comment above I needed to have a better understanding of what this law provided. But, it does not change my mind. It was most likely taped illegally in my opinion. The ACORN people in the video were wrong too, they should have said what they were suggesting was illegal and got out of there. If ACORN is a legitimate organization they would not want this kind of representation. Wow Z, you gave us a complicated issue. But, I do agrree journalists need Shield Law as long as they are abiding by the law in getting the story.

Hi Sherry, No, it does not matter who is doing the taping. It is complicated. I have used this case since 1996 in trhe "Media Ethics" course I teach at Goucher College, and it makes some of the kids' heads spin a little. But they all leave the course knowing they have to get permission before they record or tape people -- and that is a good thing in terms of being fair and not invading anyone's privacy through the use of deception. Thanks. Z

My husband asked if Dateline "To Catch a Predator" would be illegal?

Good question. It varies state by sate, but in Marytland if they tape any of "predators" without their knowledge, I believe it would be. Thanks. Z

So I think I have the shield law confused. This law is only to protect a journalist from having to testify if they are party to a conversation while they are on an assignment right? It has nothing to do with taping a conversation without permission. Sorry for all the posts, you have me engaged now, but I am going to have to get going and will check back.

OK, taxpayers, let's prosecute these kids for having the nerve to expose a corrupt liberal organization. Send them to jail and spare ACORN.

Just giving you a historical fact in hopes of bringing some clarity to a confused discussion, Allen. Thanks. Z

I wonder if a Nancy Pelosi's kid went filming a pro life counselling group would she be cited in the same way. The press has filled pages with how they broke the law just like Linda Tripp. But they never chose use an example of a liberal recording of a conservative cause. Perhaps because in Maryland the left never goes after a left wing group. I hope Ms. Jessamy tries to attack the messenger but allow the crooks at ACORN to go free. I would like you as critic to give one just one example of a left wing media or "documentary" film maker that have been prosecuted for violating such a statute?

Hello Gueman, What would that prove? Even if I couldn't find a case, maybe all that would prove is that a so-called "left wing" filmmaker never violated the law. Not all the world is left-right politics. Some folks really do believe in laws and standards of journalism. I believe the State's Attorney would prosecute if a law was violated and a ciomplaint was filed no matter what the politics of the person who violated the law. Thanks. Z

How do you do investigative journalism if you notify the ones being investigated? Wouldn't they lawyer up and thus stop all investigation of the truth?

You can investigate all you want without informing the subject -- you just can't record them without getting their consent. Thanks. Z

If there is any prosecutor who would
dare charge these film makers for this
they deserve to be listed along side
of great legal minds Mike Nifong
and Roland Friesler.

If the film makers go to prison they could
do it proudly like Mr. Mullally who was
ordered to keep a government secret about
how Domestic Violence charges against Los
Angeles cops were being buried by the
Police department.

It would expose BAD LAWS.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440734466

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler

I am shocked to find that these two reporters could be prosecuted. However, if it does happen, Jessamy would be shown in a completely new light because as a big campaigner and contributor for Obama it's not a tall leap to see her tied to Acorn as well. This is a tightly wound circle with Obama in the middle. By the time the lawyers and the media get through with Jessamy, she is going to wish that she pretended to after Acorn, the real scumbags of this earth.

While this discussion is relatively interesting, I think any reasonable person would agree that the bigger issue is what was caught on film.

As many times as we have seen criminals released or their penalties reduced because they 'didn’t know any better', I think it is clear that the young man and woman who did the taping were focused on doing the right thing. They are not ABC News.

Furthermore, I think the naivety of their actions is clear because I do not think they realize that they have placed themselves in harm’s way. There will be retribution, the only question is what types and how much.

On the other hand, the ACORN people are spending and doling out our tax dollars. They have much greater responsibility to know and operate within the laws. Their actions were not reckless, they were despicable. And they were systematic. As a business owner, I recognize well trained staff. It is not easy to get two situations to be handled almost identically in two different locations.

I don't think the two filmmakers thought that they may have been breaking laws. I think they were trying to do the right thing -- more so than thousands of criminals who have been given 'consideration'. On the other hand, as a 52 year old man I would be willing to take actions that I knew would send me to jail if those actions exposed people who helped facilitate children being imported and sold for prostitution.

This was some of the most disgusting behavior I have ever witnessed and done in the most callous manner.

I hope that the Maryland State's Attorney brings charges against James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. These two courageous twenty-somethings are the 21st Century equivalent of John Peter Zenger. If charges are filed against them, I guarantee you that within a few short weeks, they will be blessed with a huge war chest to fight the charges. They will have the resources to match the state’s case dollar for dollar. This pool of resources will be made up of hundreds of thousands of modest contributions from ordinary people. No competent, responsible attorney will waste scarce funds prosecuting a case they can not possibly win and that would be sustained on appeal. James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have performed an invaluable public service, IMHO. Baltimore City State’s Attorney Patricia Jessamy can be reached at mail@stattorney.org or (410) 396-4001

This Acorn people must be real stupid. What pimp they know...or anyone knows in Baltimore walks around with a Giant Fur Coat...especially in fairly warm weather? That should have told them something was wrong. They most not be from this town.

Why is everyone suddenly so concerned with legal questions? Allow me to put that another way; Which concerns you more, college kids illegally taping conversations for sensationalistic, gotcha journalism and youtube fare? Or large and powerful organizations spending your hard earned tax dollars to support and protect illegal activities like prostitution and tax evasion?

And to answer your silent but rhetorical question you may be thinking; would I break the law to expose such corruption? In a second I would. The law was not intended to protect corruption, it just seems it may have in this one instance. I don't understand the delight you seem to have in pointing out that the law may in this case be on ACORN's side. Morality (the larger issue) certainly isn't on their side.

"ACORN, America is onto your scam. Your done! Make sure you burn those incriminating papers... When the FBI raids your offices they will find them. Then instead of racketeering charges you'll also be in for felony conspiracy! Each of your volunteers is simple, uneducated, willing, and unwittingly involved in your socialistic and corrupt project. These volunteers will also wake up as the truth continues to emerge. The veil has been pulled back, and your organization is a disgusting pool of filth and slack water. Your finished!"

The whole idea of filming people without their permission is a thorny issue.

Do you like seeing people you don't know being caught doing funny things? How about embarassing things? Does it matter if they're being set up, or not? Do you enjoy seeing people you don't like getting caught doing something wrong? Do you make excuses for someone you like when they're caught doing something wrong? Is there a difference between a newsman with a camera and a citizen with a cellphone? Do you feel safer because there are security cameras at the mall? Police cameras on street corners? Red light cameras at intersections? Speed cameras on highways? Are some of these good and some of them bad? Are your answers consistent with each other? Can you draw a solid line between the good and the bad, or is the landscape too fluid for that?

I'm not sure I can answer these questions to my own satisfaction, much less anyone else's.

I agree with "thorny" comment. I hate seeing people filmed in comical situations without their knowledge. It is debasing to them, and I hate that TV exploits such subjects and makes money off it. I think you should need permission to capture and distribute someone's image. Thanks. Z

Except as specifically authorized in the Wiretap Act, a person
may not “wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any
other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or
electronic communications.” CJ §10-402(a)(1). In addition, it is
unlawful to wilfully use or disclose the contents of a communication
obtained in violation of the wiretap law. CJ §10-402(a)(2)-(3). The
Wiretap Act does not address video surveillance alone.
The wilful interception, use, or disclosure of a protected
communication is a felony that carries a potential sentence of 5 years
incarceration and a $10,000 fine. CJ §10-402 (b). A successful plaintiff
in a civil action may recover actual damages or liquidated damages ($100
per day or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, attorney’s fees,
and costs. CJ §10-410(a).

Hi, Thanks for the comment, but you are wrong about this. And the passage you cited only confuses the issue. Felony, five year maximum for taping without consent of all parties involved. We don't need to confuse the matter. By the standards with which Stossel was charged, these two look drop-dead guilty to me -- in part, by their own confession. So, let's see what happens if someone files a complaint against them. Thanks. Z

It is unbelievable how ACORN warrants such incredible hate and fear. Just what is so scary about poor folks?

If a pimp and prostitute were approaching a lawyer or tax accountant they would not be turned in to the police. They would be treated as clients. They could even go to free legal and tax service outlets. ACORN is not the only group that provides assistance to the poor.

Entrapment is so easy, and I can't wait to have Bartlett and the Foxies given fair and equal treatment, just as they deserve.

Thanks Z. I was really going in the wrong direction on this one.

In a matter of fairness and because I am sometimes very naive about people, I think people should know they are being taped/recorded. There are too many people out there if you did allow secret taping that might knowingly want to trap people for their own personal gain.

I am so sick of MSM bashing people who do independent research that leads to a good bit of journalism. Two things here. One is that these kids exposed and gave concrete evidence to what pundits on cable news and critics have been saying for years about ACORN. Secondly, if it walks and quacks like a duck? It is probabaly a duck. I have the utmost respect for James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. The future is bright if we have young Americans like them.

SO WHAT!!! Let ACORN take this to court and then the AMERICAN TAXPAYER can get a good look at how their MONEY is being spent!

We always forget.... It is like Bush's Attorney general Mukasey stated .. All crimes are not crimes to be prosecuted..

So I imagine if you are a republican or helping a republican you are not prosecuted..

Just ask Rove , Cheney , Bush , Rice , Ashcroft , Rumsfeld attorney general Gonzales , Rush , Halliburton , Blackwater , RNC , Coulter..

Look at the range of crimes ..
Voter fraud ,
taken illegal drugs , treason / torture ,
lies to illegally invade another country ,
political firing of judges , Rape , electrocuting solders , stealing tax money through government contracts ,
selling military equipment to countries on the terrorist list and these are just starters..

They are certainly attacking the mayor of Baltimore ,,, Dixon and I believe you could call her a liberal..
They certainly did not attack the prior governor for his illegal and corrupted policies did they..

I'm not defending the ACORN people at all; if they did something wrong, prosecute them. They may just be guilty of extremely poor judgment, but I really don't know.

However, I'm not sure what "these kids" did really was "exposing" a "corrupt liberal organization." It exposed 2 ACORN employees who have poor judgment and perhaps broke the law. It does not expose ACORN as a whole.

Using that logic, many organizations and corportions, and in fact governmental bodies, would be corrupt because they had employees who have been convicted of a crime.

It should be noted that at this "sting" operation was attempted in ACORN offices in 3 other cities, and in those cases, the actors were turned away.

I'm no legal expert at all, but seems to me that unless there were instructions coming from ACORN management how to answer these "kids," then the organization itself would not be at fault....maybe I'm wrong, though.

Vince, you make several sound points that those who want to see this story only through iodeological blinders overlook. Z

I'm wondering if this might have been a setup by ACORN's enemies. Perhaps someone should look closer into the individuals involved and see if there is something there.

By the way, Stossel is a bozo.

David:

... Why did these amateurs have to do something that professional journalists are apparently no longer competent enough or dedicated enough to do?

...
Dave

Here's an idea for all the nuts out there with Acorns for brains. Since you all are so hot on seeing corruption prosecuted, why don't you start investigating Blackwater (Xe), Haliburton and KBR. They're on the hook for ripping off billions of taxpayer dollars. Or is it only "liberal" wrongdoing that you're interesting in. Hypocrites.

Do the police in MD use dash-cams? If they do and if a crime is recorded, do the "perps" have to give permission for that recording to be used?

From what I read it is not the video on Youtube that these students filmed that can get them in trouble the images are fine, it is the conversation that is in the video that they did not have permission for. Does that mean that you can film someone doing something illegal and use it as long as there is no conversation attached?

Linda Tripp, Stossel and now those who exposed ACORN.

The left doesn't see any selective prosecution. Nope...none of that here...We see nothing...we know nothing...NUTHING...

If the two secret filmers are prosecuted there will be outrage and it will only shine more bad light on ACORN

The Looney left just doesn’t know when to shut the up and let something past.

You have Wilson, who apologized to the President so can you let it go. No loonies left has to go on and on about how they are going to send larges sums of money to Wilson's opponent. Now Wilson is a hero to the right causes. He gets large sums of money. And gets all kinds of news time. Way to go loonies left. Now Lonnie tunes Nancy want to "censor" Wilson. Go for it make him an even bigger hero.

Now you have Acorn trapped and committing a crime on live television. Do you let it go? Move on as it were. No now you want to create two more heroes for the right wing. You fools never learn that some times it is best to just shut up.

When you left loonies booed Bush no one went on and on about it. Bush just went on about his speech.

Only because I care about facts, let me point out that the ACORN pair appeared on videotape -- not live television. Thanks for your comment. Z

I am sorry that these two acorn employees got caught . Overall I would support what they were doing: setting up a business that is illegal but should be legal and counseling people on how to evade federal taxes which no one should have to pay. Even though Acorn's politics are left wing, the actions of these two people were no different than those of people who hide money in Swiss bank accounts and who use other means to evade taxes. Ultimately very free market and very libertarian. And the fact that they were using federal money to counsel people on how to evade federal taxes is even sweeter, especially now when the emphasis is on how to collect MORE taxes. I am sorry they got caught. Hopefully the threat of the shield laws will have a chilling effect any future exposes of this type of activity.

When you left loonies booed Bush no one went on and on about it. Bush just went on about his speech.

Please remember that when Democratic senators and congressmen criticized Bush they were called traitors for not supporting the office of the president. Now Republicans are considered traitors if they do support the office.

As for Wilson, congressmen are specifically forbidden by their codes of conduct to heckle the president while he is addressing congress. It's written down; they all know it. (It's an interesting document, worth looking up.) If they violate any of their codes, they get censured for it. It's always been that way.

That's the way it works with civil disobedience: you make your point even though you know you're going to be punished for it. Protesters know they may be arrested or even beaten for their actions. Wilson knew he was risking getting his wrist slapped.

Giles and O'Keefe were egged on in their... YELLOW JOURNALISM...

This is heavily edited because almost everything else in the comme t was potentailly libelous. Sorry, but i just can't post the kind of charges you leveled against the person who you say "egged" O'Keefe and Giles on without evidence. Z

So when is that ... Stossel going to jail?

Edited for coarse language. Z

Long time ago 60 minutes video taped corrupt mechanic shops in the exact same fashion. After that every person with video cameras tried doing the same thing. If that is illegal , why no legal action then?

As I explained before, the laws vary state to state. Z

First off it was not ACORN, it was employee's of ACORN, they make it sound like all of ACORN condensed into these people.
Every company no matter what has bad employees and good, but we do not blame the employer every time. Give ACORN a rest, they have helped a lot of people, beside this is illeagl as hell!!

So, it is now more despicable to record someone without them knowing it than it is to aid and abet prostitution with tax payer funds and assist with underage prostitution with illegal immigrants.

...

Z, I really appreciated your posting even one sentence of my comment with your explanation. If you keep digging on the reporter's name I provided and his former well known employer, you may find very disturbing info. He worked there in the 80s and possibly early 90s. I closely followed his former publication's coverage of the call boy ring and the possibly related House post office/banking scandal... I was worried that a Congressional staffer/ex-boyfriend was involved in the post office scandal and I coincidentally got hired by the mentioned publication. My new colleagues told me about the fired reporter whom I also coincidentally met a few months earlier at his new job when I was looking for work. The reporter was very likable, so I was sorry to hear about his dark side. However, I have zero tolerance for hypocrisy that gratuitously smears or entraps organizations that help the poor. You probably won't want to publish this either, but I hope this explanation helps you understand my comment. I'm not a journalist, so I'm limited in pursuing this.

Hi Kelly, Thanks. I can publish this because you name no one -- nor do you identify the publication you are talking about. As youi can see I took out the one name of the one elected official you mentioned. Even though he is a public figure, let's err on the side of caution. Thanks for understanding why I had to edit the other one so heavilty -- but I wanted to acknowledge your comment somehow. Z

Z - - I really would like to see the corruption at ACORN end. Despite that fact, your article helped me see this issue in a new light. That's why I enjoy your articles!

Hi Amy, Thanks, that is very kind of you to say. I agree. If ACORN employees are corrupt, I also want to see them prosecuted. But we also have to understand what the law is when it comes to recording other people. Maybe the filmmakers believe the end justifies the means. Still, if they are found to have committed a felony....Z

The Law is hypocritical, when the government is allowed to violate equal protections, by secretly recording -at every opportunity- its citizens; all the while, punishing the said citizens for secretly recording the criminals -"Catch 22"-; isn't this a form of "obstruction of Justice"....

First, it should be determined if such criminal activity had transpired; if it did.., you don't kill the Messinger because you are uncomfortable with the message.

You investigate it, to determine it's authenticity.., like the White House does on it's "drop-a-dime" program..; or, are the White House Messingers protected by the same priviledges our statesmen grant to themselves...?

In the meantime.., don't get too concerned over "Acorn"..; for the leeches will fall off the empires decaying body and die.., in the not-to-distant future...!

Well, video of DC office is released now and it really sounds like they have many more to hand out with each ACORN denial.

Also, have you noticed that ACORN has not actually given proof that the two film makers were turned away? No phone records of calling police as they claimed. No intra-office email traffic describing what happened. No affidavits from ACORN employees claiming such.

Why don't you do a story as to why Mikulski, Cardin and Hoyer choose to ignore ACORN's illegal activities happening right under their noses? Is is because Obama used to belong to ACORN? Congress needs to investigate ACORN and stop funding them with our tax dollars.

If James O'Keefe is prosecuted so be it (can't wait to see the backlash on that.) Sometimes you have to sacrifice for a cause and bringing down ACORN is a righteous cause.

You know as well as I do that no one will prosecute the prostitute and the pimp. They broke the law, but breaking the taping law isn't worth pursuing unless it's just tacked onto something else, like if the pimp had gone over the desk and attacked an ACORN person. But like the man said, don't do the crime if you can do the time. The pimp and the prostitute made their decision to tape knowing the consequences, so, whatever happens happens.

A Maryland State's Attorney is going to prosecute people who exposed the kind of corruption rampant within ACORN? ACORN is trusted with federal funds, tax payers money, money taken from me and you, and they are being defended by the state while breaking state and federal laws, or at least counseling others on ways to do so. Why is FOX news and the internet the only place people are being heard saying that this is wrong? Where are the truth-seekers? Where are the defenders of the common man? It's time to water the tree.

The ISSUE here is the issue here. This is like saying that because you secretly video taped a burglar entering your home and stealing your goods, that he's the victim and you're the criminal. ... They are using taxpayer money...our money, and they are showing themselves to be charlatans. ...

Hi Wayne, I am just stating a fact about the law that applies to secret taping and the admission of guilt by the filmmakers. Thanks. Z

I think I know which reporter Kelly is talking about after I did some extensive reading on this, but I have a hard time putting all of this together and I am not sure if it matters. ...

The mere fact that a prosecution of the whistleblowers would even be considered is an outrage.

A law that violates the First Amendment -- like a ban on recording evidence of crimes or wrongdoing -- is null and void.

I am appalled that the commenters seem to think that simply because a law attempts to silence the exposure of wrongdoing, it should be enforced, even if it violates the First Amendment.

Prosecutors take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, which includes the First Amendment.

Would those same commenters argue that the photographer who videtaped the beating of Rodney King should have been put in prison, if a state law had banned taping the beating without the police officers' consent?

Hi, Thanks for the comment. But just because you say the law is "null and void" doesn't make it so. Z

Parts of similar laws restricting audiotaping have been ruled null and void, on First Amendment grounds, according to federal judges in other parts of the country.

For example, in Jean v. Massachusetts State Police (2007), the Boston-based federal appeals court held that Massachusetts' ban on audiotaping violated the First Amendment as applied in that case.

So, yes, the fact that I say the law is "null and void" doesn't make it so.

But the fact that some judges have questioned those laws is relevant.

Why should a prosecutor enforce a constitutionally-dubious law against whistleblowers, when the city is plagued by violent crimes, and many violent criminals in the city are never even apprehended?

No prosecutor with limited resources prosecutes over every technical violation -- especially when the law in question has constitutional infirmities.

They filed felony charges on Stossel and four others from ABC, as I wrote, under the same law in the same city with violent criminals. Thanks for the commnet and the Massachusetts case.. Z

This was a very interesting piece. Though you're right about preceident about filing charges, apparently there is a precedent about dropping charges too like in John Stossel's case. Your article prodded me to do a quick search and found this: http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html
The language in that law is a lawyer's playground.

Hi, in the Stossel case, the two witnsesses refused to testify and ABC News said no tapes were ever made. These filmmakers are all over TV and the Internet saying they made the tapes -- and showing them. Z

This was a very interesting piece. Though you're right about preceident about filing charges, apparently there is a precedent about dropping charges too like in John Stossel's case. Your article prodded me to do a quick search and found this: http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html
The language in that law is a lawyer's playground.

Despite what many people here are saying, this story is small potatoes. Two people presenting themselves as lawbreakers (generally, in the 60 Minutes or consumer-affairs style of undercover videos, the principals present themselves as ordinary citizens) go into an organization's offices and ask for help in their "illegal" activities. They find some low-level employees willing to help. The organization fires those employees.

That's it. That's all that happened. It's not "proof" that the entire organization is corrupt.

I don't know much about ACORN, but -- and I really think this is important -- neither do most of the people commenting here, except that they've been told it's "bad."

ACORN is a civil rights organization. People with power hate civil rights organizations. Everybody knows that. It doesn't matter whether it's a "good" or "bad" organization in terms of its techniques and effectiveness, all civil rights organizations are demonized by people whose self-interest is in maintaining the status quo.

As I said, I can't defend ACORN because I'm not that familiar with it. People on the left tell me that it has helped many people secure housing, utilities, health care, etc. People on the right tell me that it's corrupt. But they don't have a list of specifics; the few things they've accused ACORN of turn out to be exaggerations and untruths. (Voter fraud? Untrue. Encouragement of sub-prime lending? Exaggerated. A founder's brother embezzled money from it? Yes, that's true, but he was caught and had to make restitution.)

That's why people jumped on this video story: it actually happened, so they can run with it. But how does this prove that the whole organization is corrupt? Even if it's considered part of a pattern of corruption, I don't see enough other pieces.

I'm willing to be convinced; the fact that ACORN is a big organization makes me less willing to trust it rather than more willing. But the pro-ACORN people have made a better case with their specifics than the anti-ACORN people have with their rhetoric.

Well then the law's crazy!!!

Here's where the jury comes in. Say ACORN does bring up O'Keefe, FOX, et al, on felony state charges.

The law is the law - one could cite Supreme Court opinions that (loosely quoted) any law that is unconstitutional is null upon enactment, not from the point it is declared so, and thus no one is bound to follow or enforce it. Barring this, assume charges are filed and the case goes to court:

It then becomes the job and duty of the jury to try both the defendants AND the LAW. The jury acts as the check-and-balance to the justice system. If a law is found to be unjust by the jury, they can - and should - return an acquittal. This establishes case law precedent. It is the JURY'S right and responsibility to always try the law at the same time they try the defendants.

So, whether anyone agrees with the law or not, it's still up to the people to proactively overturn bad laws or shut them down in court.

All of these videos are heavily edited which makes you wonder what they took out inorder to make their point.

Wow jds! You must have the same gift of reading hearts and minds that Maureen Dowd has. Good for you!

Wow jds! You must have the same gift of reading hearts and minds that Maureen Dowd has. Good for you!

Sorry? I don't understand what you're saying -- except that you're dealing in personality rather than issues. The only "hearts and minds" I see in my comments is when I said that people in power hate civil rights organizations. Is that what you're challenging, or something else? I try not to state anything as fact that I can't back up, and carefully go over my comments in preview before I post them. I'd be glad to discuss any issues with you, but if you'd rather just make smug comments, that's okay, too.

I hope they do throw those two "snotty white kids" in prison for more than 5 years. And I also hope the fired ACORN workers sue in civil courts for the damages. Even if they do not win, I want the tea bagger money (that someone here spoke about) totally wasted on all of this. In fact, I hope FOX News gets sued too, so their bank accounts get even more drained as their advertisers pull out everyday.

Why do I feel like this? Well first off, anyone can do what they did in any place of business, or service. I could walk into any bank, restaurant, hotel or fill-in-the-blank-store and capture tons of people giving bad advice - even really bad advice. But somehow to link that these women personally would support prostitution or that ACORN supports this - is - well slander. And I hope ACORN and these women sue the heck out of everyone involved in this.

You have a YouTube video that shows these two hacks offering up ridiculous "criminal" information and then you have ACORN staff trying to help them. The ACORN women are cited over and over, telling the two college students, "you cannot do that, or even say that. That is illegal." So what is the problem? They were trying to advise them on their safety, I see no problem. They NEVER gave them a form to fill out or a house. NO MONEY was exchanged hands nor really no crime was committed by these women. This is merely a distraction of the real issue - some folks hate a black President who is supported by black voters.

Lastly, do any of you actually know a prostitute? Have tried to help one get out of that world? It is not EASY! Many are addicted and are abused themselves. They live in a very volatile world. You are nothing but fools to think that these ACORN women, with a "self-proclaimed looking pimp" in their presence would try NOT to help that young woman. There is even video of the white college girl (who said she was a hooker) that she had follow up calls from the ACORN offices to meet privately the next day for lunch. THIS IS STANDARD to separate the prostitute from the possible violent boyfriend. I praise and support these ACORN women for keeping things cool so that the woman wasn't just pulled out of their office by a threat to call the police. They help women in these poor neighborhoods everyday. And as much as we all easily believe these two hacks were "acting out a part" maybe these ACORN women were also "acting out a part" to protect that young white college aged hooker.

Guess what.... this only confirms the every growing proof that paints the tea party as a bunch of ... white ... bigots. Keep attacking poor black people and their urban community. It will bring the next civil war upon your lawn even faster. I guarantee you will not only destroy your tea bagger movement but also the Republican Party will never recover being labeled the party of white racists.

Get a clue and go back to your racists communities where you belong. ...

Hi, Thank you for your comment. I had to try and edit a few terms. This blog appreciates passion and strong feelings, but tries to keep from printing comments that might insult whole groups of people. Thank you. Z

I'm grateful for your insight. These two may indeed go to jail, but the Senate vote today seems to justify their actions.

I do think it is a huge black eye for our regional journalist that this sort of widespread corruption was going on in at least three acorn offices across our region and it took two college kids to break the story.

Who is so vile and without moral bearing that they would wink at and even enable sex trafficking?

If the State Attorney decides to pursue this, it will have the potential to open up all of ACORN's financial data. Given that the corruption of ACORN is deep, this will expose some people in high places to serious legal problems and humiliation. Because ACORN has its political ties with one particular party and one particular president, it could be quite unpleasant.

My guess is that the State Attorney is going to let this slide for fear of opening up this can of worms and potentially humiliating the party in power. More than likely, they'll cut the lifeline to ACORN (they've already begun those steps) and watch their political ally who helped them so much in the 2008 election sink into the deep blue sea. In other words, they'll "throw them under the bus" to save their own skins from humilation. It'll be just as easy to create another ACORN under a different pseudonym.

Those two ACORN employees were so stupid they would have let James and Hannah video the conversation had they just asked permission...If Jessamy prosecutes these kids for exposing ACORNS true colors, then shame on her and her office! Come on ... really, politicians bend or break laws everyday and nothing is done about it and these kids are going to get the gavel because they were smart enough to expose this corrupt agency that's getting millions in stimulus money? Don't break the law in MD or you might go to jail... unless your a politician or backed by one!!! The whole thing stinks like ten day old bluefish!

hey z, did you get in any trouble for not testifying or anything? also, i'm a little confused about your involvement in the 1996 case, but i'll ask you about it in class. if you remember on friday and i don't, please bring it up. thanks.

According to Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, the citizen journalists cannot be prosecuted in MD, because they did not transmit the conversation to an offsite collection point or tap a phone.

Is this correct??

No, Napolitano continues to put out incorrect information on this case as a cable analyst. He could not be more off on this one. And the astounding thing is that he does not appear tro try and get the facts that are out there. Thanks. Z

Out of curiousity, how does Maryland treat businesses operating w/out a license? Since Acorns had lapsed?

jds, I appreciated your explanation of the ACORN women's misunderstood but savvy reaction to the "journalists". Giles was too racist and stupid to realize that they were trying to extricate her from an abusive criminal boyfriend.

I lived in Baltimore and I have nothing good to say about the home of the ... NAACP organization or this ... move by the State's Attorney to bring felony charges against these two inventive filmmakers. The only time the Democrats aren't shooting themselves in the foot, is when they are reloading their gun.

Edited for language. Z

Thanks for this informative article.

We live in a softer age, where people have forgotten the concept of civil disobedience. MLK went to jail for following his beliefs. Ghandhi also spent time under government sanction. Protestors go to jail all the time. In the previous administration, people would go to jail for wearing certain T-shirts at Bush rallies. So, for the two students, going to jail for breaking a law put on the books by the people of MD should be worth what they exposed.

What makes these two students above the law? Has the attitude of the last 8 years sunk in, and a "ends justify the means" zeitgeist sunk into our society? Torture, wiretapping, lying to the nation, exposing covert agents---all are OK as long as you are punishing your ideological enemies.

The involvement of criminal activity makes any law banning the recording nebulous. Would a jury really convict? Why is privacy breeched when the RIAA thinks you downloaded music illegally and demands your personal information from your ISP. Why can a private investigator (or the tv show cheaters) go out and record people without their consent? Yes the TV show may get release forms to air the material, but they certainly do not have a release form when they make the recordings.

And last but not least why can't a lawyer claim attorney client privilege when he is helping and conspiring with the client to launder drug money or commit other crimes? My point is these privacy protections tend to stop at the point that illegal activity starts to happen. And it is certainly clear that the ACORN employees where entering into conspiracies to commit tax fraud, loan fraud, kidnapping, child labor law violations, immigration fraud, and pedophile-sex crimes. If I'm on the jury there's no way these two can be convicted for exposing the willingness of ACORN to assist in these activities. And if they counter sue for amoral prosecution and just plain stupidity on the part of the government for going after them I would award them damages. Fraud is fraud and unethical use of tax dollars is what it is and it needs to be exposed and cleaned up, and the whistleblowers need to be protected.

Hi Charles, Thanks for the comment, but you have mainly only confused the issue. The Maryland law is actually quite clear -- and the two "filmmakers" confessed to breaking it. Thanks. Z

I saw the "getup" the "pimp" was wearing. I'm surprised the ACORN employees didn't fall out of their chairs laughing. I haven't seen clothes like that since the last time I watched "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka". Was the "reporter" or "film maker" or what ever he claimed to be also wearing shoes with goldfish in the heels?

All I know is Hannah Giles put on her hooker microskirt and confessed on videotape for the whole world to see that she's a prostitute seeking to open a brothel featuring under-aged illegal alien girls. Oh yeah, and she has a pimp. That's just what she admitted to on tape, a voluntary confession.

You really have to wonder about the issues of the people who are posting here who are eager to see these two kids crucified for what they have done here. It makes perfect sense though, when you can't defend against the message, kill the messenger!