How are faux liberals supposed to silence people whose views they dislike, except by character assassination? It's right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.We're at the point where if you criticize anyone, you can be called a racist
black students may try joining a beta gamma club if they believe alfa is racist
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK
I think the recorder is on solid legal groundAccording to Oklahoma law, it is a felony to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or disclose the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Okla. Stat. tit. 13 § 176.3. It is not a crime for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the conversation or when one party to the conversation has given prior consent, so long as the person does not intercept the communication for criminal purposes. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.4.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.2.
- See more at: Oklahoma - State laws - Wire Tapping
Recording Phone Calls and Conversations | Digital Media Law Project
If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
From a legal standpoint, the most important question in the recording context is whether you must get consent from one or all of the parties to a phone call or conversation before recording it. Federal law and many state wiretapping statutes permit recording if one party (including you) to the phone call or conversation consents. Other states require that all parties to the communication consent.
I would argue they do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this regard.
Again, this is a fraternity which is secretive by its very nature. All the persons present were members, or guests of members, and it can easily be understood that such language and wording wouldn't be expressed publicly -- Which is where the reasonable expectation of privacy would come into play.
But thanks for finding the law, I didn't know, as my OP stated....