You don't need any consent to film people in public. The only time consent would even come into the picture is if you were on private property, or you were planning on publishing the media in some way.

This clarification seems a bit unnecessary since the comment to which Akira was replying was this:

ZPO said:
It could just as easily the product of someone trying to get voter footage for a film.

Which, you know, would qualify as "publishing the media in some way."

Helter also said:
My best guess about the filming is that they're trying to establish whether people voted multiple times, but I'm not sure how they'd do that using film from outside.
As for intimidation, if their filming from a car with blacked out windows, how are the voters even supposed to know that it's there in order to be intimidated (this isn't to you Akira, just a question in general).

Well, first off, the story seems unclear about where he was. It says he was filming voters "from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows." If he was behind the vehicle, he may have been visible to voters who would see that act as being suspicious. I know I'd be suspicious if I realized I had been being filmed while voting. But the fact that they mention the blacked-out windows on the vehicle gives us the image of a PI sitting inside the vehicle where he wouldn't have been able to be seen.

But beyond that, the bit about the PI is a footnote on the story, and it's kind of beside the point.

[Edited on Oct 30, 2004 by bean]

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA

January 2004

OCT 30, 2004 09:15 PM

Southuhn said:
As for racial bias, I don't see why they would be racially biased. Are they just feeling spiteful this year? It makes a lot more sense to interpret this as the Republicans targeting neighborhoods that are most likely to go against them.

Then they should target my neighborhood, which is heavily democratic, largely white, highly educated, and gay, right?

No, because those people know their rights and aren't easily intimidated. The GOP generally targets democratic-leaning populations who aren't very well educated on the whole and who aren't as likely to be aware of their rights. They also target populations who have a history of being treated unfairly by law enforcement/government in general, and who because of that are less likely to put up a fight when someone who appears to be in a posititon of authority challenges their right to vote. Where I live, in the deep south, that translates into black neighborhoods, and I think that's true in a lot of other states as well.

Your speculation makes sense; I'm just saying there's just a little more to it than that. And even if they weren't targeting minorities specifically, making accusations of voter fraud in order to suppress the other side's vote-- whoever they are-- is disgusting.

clintron

Portsmouth, NH

September 2003

OCT 30, 2004 09:25 PM

This stuff pisses me off. what ever happened to "so be it- we lost. there's always next time." hmm?
they really need to quit fucking with people.

Just remember that your voice is a weapon. If they try to take your ballot, be loud.

baudot

Oakland, CA

February 2004

NOV 02, 2004 06:54 PM

The BBC has published the republican response to the story, calling their reporter partisan and unprofessional. They have also posted a counter response, telling the republican party, where they can stick it, orientation:sideways, and for what reasons.

PAGE:

1 | 2

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

NEWS: Florida: I Can't Get No, Clean E-lec-tion.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

OCT 30, 2004 08:26 PM