Bristol & Lifetime being sued

[The Infidel]

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.

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

 

[BDBoop]

yes, I did.

You got on mic? What did you say?

I guess I said "We're having a great time!" or something banal like that. i have no recollection of it, or very vague.

So you knew you were on mic, and you agreed to speak by virtue of having a microphone stuck in your face.

I'm guessing the mic had one of those little boxes that state which station or network you spoke to?

This gentleman didn't have that option, and this wasn't for the news. This was for a money-making endeavor, he looked like an ass and it was going on network tv for entertainment.

He has a case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

 

[Missourian]

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.

Where is the law Clayton?

The only precedent I've found clearly states a release IS NOT required, that a camera...even hidden camera...may be used to video record voice and image in any public place where the individual has no expectation of privacy...and be rebroadcast without the individuals express permission.

 

[koshergrl]

You got on mic? What did you say?

I guess I said "We're having a great time!" or something banal like that. i have no recollection of it, or very vague.

So you knew you were on mic, and you agreed to speak by virtue of having a microphone stuck in your face.

I'm guessing the mic had one of those little boxes that state which station or network you spoke to?

This gentleman didn't have that option, and this wasn't for the news. This was for a money-making endeavor, he looked like an ass and it was going on network tv for entertainment.

He has a case.

He doesn't not, nitwit. He yelled across the room, loud enough to be overheard in a BAR, deliberately to get the attention of the camera crew that he saw filming. When they advanced on him and stood next to him, he continued with his foul tirade, with camera, lights and a mic trained on him.

 

[BDBoop]

I guess I said "We're having a great time!" or something banal like that. i have no recollection of it, or very vague.

So you knew you were on mic, and you agreed to speak by virtue of having a microphone stuck in your face.

I'm guessing the mic had one of those little boxes that state which station or network you spoke to?

This gentleman didn't have that option, and this wasn't for the news. This was for a money-making endeavor, he looked like an ass and it was going on network tv for entertainment.

He has a case.

He doesn't not, nitwit. He yelled across the room, loud enough to be overheard in a BAR, deliberately to get the attention of the camera crew that he saw filming. When they advanced on him and stood next to him, he continued with his foul tirade, with camera, lights and a mic trained on him.

Oh, look! A double-negative. We are therefore in agreement.

 

[koshergrl]

Ikes.

I'll leave it cuz it's funny.

 

[Luissa]

He actually does, and will probably get money. Not saying he isn't an asshole.
They used him for a commercial, she mentioned him in a magazine article and called him a homosexual.
If they would have made him sign a waver, they could have prevented being sued, but they didn't. Now lifetime will have to settle and this jerk off will be a few million dollars richer. I guess they should have done their job.

 

[koshergrl]

He called her mother a whore on camera.

I say they need to sue his ass.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

That bald idiot should count himself lucky. He got the attention he really wanted when what he deserved was to be dragged out behind that bar and beaten.

 

[Luissa]

He called her mother a whore on camera.

I say they need to sue his ass.

They could have......UNtil Bristol made a big mistake. She said because of people like him she was moving back to Alaska. She had bought the house a month before the incident.

 

[BDBoop]

He actually does, and will probably get money. Not saying he isn't an asshole.
They used him for a commercial, she mentioned him in a magazine article and called him a homosexual.
If they would have made him sign a waver, they could have prevented being sued, but they didn't. Now lifetime will have to settle and this jerk off will be a few million dollars richer. I guess they should have done their job.

$75,000.

That's all he's asking.

 

[Luissa]

He actually does, and will probably get money. Not saying he isn't an asshole.
They used him for a commercial, she mentioned him in a magazine article and called him a homosexual.
If they would have made him sign a waver, they could have prevented being sued, but they didn't. Now lifetime will have to settle and this jerk off will be a few million dollars richer. I guess they should have done their job.

$75,000.

That's all he's asking.

I bet it goes up.

I do not like Sarah Palin at all, but I do think the guy was an asshole. If someone called my mom a whore I would have done more than call him a homosexual.

 

[Ernie S.]

Had he called my mom a whore, it would be his estate suing me.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[Luissa]

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Just another asshole seeking his 15 minutes of fame while the cameras were rolling. It just didn't get the kind of attention he thought it should. Of course he's pissed, no one came beating on his door, asking for his story. He's gotta pay his dealer somehow.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Ever hear of fair use?