• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

Re: Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Priso

There are ways that can be used to determine if something was doctored.

Yes, but in practice the initial recording is what sticks in peoples' minds. Yes, in a court case the truth might eventually come out after several expensive expert witnesses and techs pour over the recording to figure that out, but just take the ACORN "scandal" as an example. A very significant portion of the population is still under the impression that ACORN employees gave advice on how best to run a brothel for underage prostitutes. The tapes that were "evidence" of that were cleverly edited (not even doctored, just cleverly cut and pasted!) to show something that was essentially the polar opposite of what really happened. (reality: the home that the girl was supposedly seeking to get a loan for was pitched as a way for these girls to escape prostitution, for those not aware)

Doesn't matter what reality was. The public and even congress believed what they saw, and ACORN got its funding yanked and was forced to splinter.

edit: All that said, I think making it illegal to tape police officers is ****ing insane.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom