Bristol & Lifetime being sued

[Luissa]

They didn't get his permission.

Very illegal, bad and wrong.

Generally, it is perfectly legal to film anyone in public. The only requirement is that a film company pay a local fee to cover security and any disruption of business. I am willing to bet that those fees were paid, which makes the filming legal.

But they have people sign waivers usually, so they don't get sued for things like this.
Google is one's friend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No he won't.

I was filed once at Pendleton Round Up. I was in the Let 'er Buck Room under the stands, whooping it up and having a blast.

My brother saw me on the evening news. I didn't sign a release. The guy popped off when cameras were rolling. He saw the cameras, he knew he was being filmed, they were WITH BRISTOL.

But you didn't speak, did you.

No.

I see the problem here, you think this is a union thing.

It isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Idiots win stupid lawsuits in this country everyday. Why not this guy?

Idiots have rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to buy a gun.

Idiot's rights do not include suing someone for defamation for recording you. Defamation is reporting something that is not true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can he be defamed by airing a tape of himself?

I don't think so.

Did he know they were running because footage was being shot for her show?

Nope.

And?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He unleashes on her and then whines he's been defamed because somebody caught his insanity on tape?

Funny.

They cant use the footage without his knowledge, pretty simple.

Wonderful assumption, I challenge you to find the applicable California statute to back that up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't get his permission.

Very illegal, bad and wrong.

A film crew is kind of hard to miss, BD. If you are being asked questions by someone holding a microphone and there's a camera pointed at you, is it not safe to think that you are being recorded?

You have to sign a written consent, or they have to post something warning people.

When they were filming a movie here at the bus station when I was younger they had signs posted at all the entrances. When my son was used for a commercial at his school, I had to sign a consent form. Even on Cops the criminal has the right to ask for his face to be blurred.

Show me the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe Lifetine can blur his face and tell him to go fuck himself.

Nope. He didn't sign a release. They're going to have to do some scrambling, but not of his face.

The show airs June 19th, according to the most recent link I posted.

I've been interviewed at TEA Party rallies, motorcycle gatherings and fiestas in Little Havana in Miami. My face and words have been on TV several times and I've NEVER signed a release.

A release is a courtesy designed to cover their ass when they edit the tape to make you look bad, they don't actually need one, especially in California.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a joke.

He goes to a television show taping, has a nutbar rant attack, and wants to claim he has to give his permission for it to be taped?

Joke.

It wasn't a television show taping. Had it been, he would have had to sign a release. Hence the lawsuit.

And hence conservatives in this thread are ignoring the law – or exhibiting their ignorance of the law – only to come to the defense of Sarah Palin’s daughter. That is indeed partisan idiocy.

Show me the fracking law or admit you know less about the law than my cat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There was a television show taping. A camera crew was there with Bristol, filming her. In a public place. Some nutbar screams abuse across the room, knowing this. Continues to rant after the camera crew notices him, as he knew it would.

There's no law that says that idiots in public places who scream abuse at camera crews must sign a release before the film is released. The people ignoring the law in this case, as usual, are progressives. Who want to see restrictions on free press and free speech. This is a great way to assure they can attack whomever they please in public...and never be held accountable for it.

I just dig how the idiots are OK with a jackass hurling vulgarities at a young lady.... so which side is OK with the SO-CALLED "war on women"??

I hate hypocrites

All of which has nothing to do with the validity of the lawsuit. Releases are required when the individual is visibly recognizable, which is clearly the case with Mr. Hanks. That he might be abusive or insulting doesn’t release the program from that responsibility. Understanding the law and the requirement to obtain a release is not condoning Hanks’ behavior, that’s an idiotic inference.

If this had happened to the relative of a democratic politician, conservatives would be in full support of the lawsuit. That’s actual hypocrisy.

Law and court citations to back your position up, or shut up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When people film the police and are told to stop their defense is that it is a public place and they can film anything they want.

When it's a lib with his balls in the wringer it's a bit different - for them.

It's illegal to film the Police in some states.

It is perfectly legal to film the police in every single state of the United States. some police are unaware of this fact, as are some DAs, and even some state attorneys. Frack, even the federal courts have stepped in and said it is perfectly legal and constitutional to record police.

Federal Court Strikes Down Illinois Eavesdropping Law « CBS St. Louis

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When people film the police and are told to stop their defense is that it is a public place and they can film anything they want.

When it's a lib with his balls in the wringer it's a bit different - for them.

It's illegal to film the Police in some states.

Where would that be?

Federal Courts Rule it is Not Illegal to Film Police - Technorati Technology

You can be filmed any time you are in a public place, as the explosion of surveillance cameras has proved over and over again.

Some police hate the idea that they can be recorded beating the crap out of people who are not breaking the law. For some reason, progressives think police should be able to get away with it, so they think it is illegal to tape police.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't get his permission.

Very illegal, bad and wrong.

Generally, it is perfectly legal to film anyone in public. The only requirement is that a film company pay a local fee to cover security and any disruption of business. I am willing to bet that those fees were paid, which makes the filming legal.

But they have people sign waivers usually, so they don't get sued for things like this.
Google is one's friend.

The waivers are a fracking courtesy, not a legal requirement.

My guess is they showed him the video, asked him for a release, and he said no. Now he thinks he can sue them.

Wanna bet on it?

 

[Luissa]

Generally, it is perfectly legal to film anyone in public. The only requirement is that a film company pay a local fee to cover security and any disruption of business. I am willing to bet that those fees were paid, which makes the filming legal.

But they have people sign waivers usually, so they don't get sued for things like this.
Google is one's friend.

The waivers are a fracking courtesy, not a legal requirement.

My guess is they showed him the video, asked him for a release, and he said no. Now he thinks he can sue them.

Wanna bet on it?

Doesn't matter, they filmed him, he didn't sign a waiver, and now he can sue. Who is the smart one this case? Not you or Lifetime.

Maybe they should have posted something at the place of filiming or had people sign waiver first? What do you think?

 

[koshergrl]

Well anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean he's justified, or that the law will support him.

I still say, public place, the guy was bellowing in order to attract attention and continued with his insane tirade after the cameras approached. A reasonable person would know they were being filmed.

I hope he accrues a shitload of attorney's fees.

 

[BDBoop]

QW, I have never seen anyone wound as tight as you are. Everything is like "ALWAYS RIGHT! LAST WORD! YOU WERE WRONG, AND NOW MUST VISIT THE FLAME ZONE TO HUMBLY PROSTRATE YOURSELF BEFORE ME!!"

Just sayin.

It gets old.

 

[hjmick]

Heckler files suit against Bristol Palin, TV network | Anchorage Daily News - The News Tribune

A Los Angeles man who launched an expletive-laden tirade against Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, has filed a lawsuit against the Lifetime Network alleging he was taped for her reality show without his knowledge or consent.


In a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, Stephen Hanks seeks general and punitive damages, saying he’s a victim of defamation and invasion of privacy after video aired of the heated confrontation.

Hanks alleges he wasn’t told the film crew at a West Hollywood bar in September was shooting footage for the reality show “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp.”

I'm not surprised he's suing. I AM surprised that he wasn't in on it to begin with. I figured the situation as a setup.

I don't see this case going very far.

I mean come on, you didn't see the cameras? Really? The bright lights in your face weren't a tip off? The guy was an ass, got better than he gave, now he's being a pissy little bitch.

Hope he has to pay court costs...

 

[BDBoop]

Well anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean he's justified, or that the law will support him.

I still say, public place, the guy was bellowing in order to attract attention and continued with his insane tirade after the cameras approached. A reasonable person would know they were being filmed.

I hope he accrues a shitload of attorney's fees.

His attorney would logically tack the fees on to be paid by the other party.

 

[koshergrl]

My point is...he's gonna lose. When you lose, you pay your own attorney fees.

And they can be exorbitant.

 

[BDBoop]

She purchased her home more than two months before she said HE was 'a major reason' she was fleeing back to Alaska.

Bristol might want to realize everybody isn't as clueless as her mother led her to believe.

 

[BDBoop]

Heckler files suit against Bristol Palin, TV network | Anchorage Daily News - The News Tribune

A Los Angeles man who launched an expletive-laden tirade against Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, has filed a lawsuit against the Lifetime Network alleging he was taped for her reality show without his knowledge or consent.


In a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, Stephen Hanks seeks general and punitive damages, saying he’s a victim of defamation and invasion of privacy after video aired of the heated confrontation.

Hanks alleges he wasn’t told the film crew at a West Hollywood bar in September was shooting footage for the reality show “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp.”

I'm not surprised he's suing. I AM surprised that he wasn't in on it to begin with. I figured the situation as a setup.

I don't see this case going very far.

I mean come on, you didn't see the cameras? Really? The bright lights in your face weren't a tip off? The guy was an ass, got better than he gave, now he's being a pissy little bitch.

Hope he has to pay court costs...

He knew he was being filmed.

He DID NOT KNOW it was for her series, and they'd use the footage to promote the show. And they couldn't do that, because he didn't sign a waiver.