The Swamp

So regarding the Guilanni stuff, which I could give 2 fucks about but everyone loves a sex story so here we are, doesn't he have to sign off on appearing in the film? How does that work? We see this shit all the time and faces get blurred or people get sued. There's a hidden camera presumably that catches him, and then he signs off on it? Either that or there's a film crew in there while this is happening and he's in on it?

I'm genuinely confused.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:49 pm So regarding the Guilanni stuff, which I could give 2 fucks about but everyone loves a sex story so here we are, doesn't he have to sign off on appearing in the film? How does that work? We see this shit all the time and faces get blurred or people get sued. There's a hidden camera presumably that catches him, and then he signs off on it? Either that or there's a film crew in there while this is happening and he's in on it?

I'm genuinely confused.

You do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

So Trump's last few tweets have been about voter fraud.. I think we are getting close enough to where Trump is going to start with voter fraud stuff. I know this has been discussed before, but I am not going to lie this has me pretty worried. Trump has his guys in alot of the key states, and had the Senate and Supreme Court on his side. So I will ask, if Biden wins, even if it's not a huge margin, how much pull does Trump have for voter fraud and him being determined the winner?

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:52 pm

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:49 pm So regarding the Guilanni stuff, which I could give 2 fucks about but everyone loves a sex story so here we are, doesn't he have to sign off on appearing in the film? How does that work? We see this shit all the time and faces get blurred or people get sued. There's a hidden camera presumably that catches him, and then he signs off on it? Either that or there's a film crew in there while this is happening and he's in on it?

I'm genuinely confused.

You do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

You expect butt-dialin' Rudy to slow down and read a release?

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:53 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:52 pm

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:49 pm So regarding the Guilanni stuff, which I could give 2 fucks about but everyone loves a sex story so here we are, doesn't he have to sign off on appearing in the film? How does that work? We see this shit all the time and faces get blurred or people get sued. There's a hidden camera presumably that catches him, and then he signs off on it? Either that or there's a film crew in there while this is happening and he's in on it?

I'm genuinely confused.

You do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

You expect butt-dialin' Rudy to slow down and read a release?

Yeah, I expect that a funny part of this whole story is how they probably tricked Rudy, supposedly a great lawyer, into signing the release.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:49 pm So regarding the Guilanni stuff, which I could give 2 fucks about but everyone loves a sex story so here we are, doesn't he have to sign off on appearing in the film? How does that work? We see this shit all the time and faces get blurred or people get sued. There's a hidden camera presumably that catches him, and then he signs off on it? Either that or there's a film crew in there while this is happening and he's in on it?

I'm genuinely confused.

I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement to get a signoff, at least not for a movie. I think such a requirement would violate the First Amendment. There's a couple of right wing nut jobs who put out hidden camera film clips all the time - usually misleadingly edited.

Someone who publishes a film can be exposed to civil liability for defamation or invasion of privacy, however. I think that's one reason why faces are often blurred.

Also, broadcast TV is subject to certain FCC regulations, so different standards may apply there.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:52 pmYou do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

How sure are you that a release is *required*, as opposed to simply a good idea to avoid defamation/privacy liability?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:57 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:52 pmYou do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

How sure are you that a release is *required*, as opposed to simply a good idea to avoid defamation/privacy liability?

Not entirely sure -- you're a lawyer and I'm not, but my understanding always has been that you have to sign a release if you're filmed for a movie or TV show unless you either sign a waiver or sign a release. For example in Las Vegas anytime there's a reality TV show filming there are signs everywhere that say there are cameras filming and your appearance in that area is your acknowledgment that you could be in the show/movie. Maybe they used a similar legal technicality with Rudy.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:57 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:52 pmYou do have to sign a release and maybe they explain it, but Rudy must have somehow (either before filming or something).

How sure are you that a release is *required*, as opposed to simply a good idea to avoid defamation/privacy liability?

I've produced several videos for my company using 3rd parties and the 3rd parties are very careful to get releases from people who are identifiable. ANd these movies are only for very specific purposes, so the idea of a major movie maker not doing that seems off to me.

So, while not a lawyer, I'm pretty familiar with this issue... As was mentioned, you open up yourself to defamation or "false light" civil litigation if you don't get a signed waiver.

And it's very easy, before the fact, to get someone to agree to sign a waiver.

What I find interesting on this is that you DON'T need a waiver if you are a journalist conducting an interview. I've never seen that, and I've been involved with setting up or being interviewed hundreds of times (yay me). Even 60 Minutes or similar shows... no waiver required. I mean, they can still get sued if they fuck around with the truth, but that's a separate issue.

Alarms, whistles and red flags should've been clouding out his brain if someone posing as a news producer (or the "reporter") asked him to sign a waiver. To say he should've known better is a huge understatement here.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:24 pm What I find interesting on this is that you DON'T need a waiver if you are a journalist conducting an interview. I've never seen that, and I've been involved with setting up or being interviewed hundreds of times (yay me). Even 60 Minutes or similar shows... no waiver required. I mean, they can still get sued if they fuck around with the truth, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly Borat (the franchise) can construe itself as journalism/documentary/reality-based whatever. And if someone is literally acting inappropriately on film, I wouldn't think that would be considered slander since it's a first-hand account. /notalawyer

My good friend, who was deputy legal counsel for our company used to joke that the first phrase everybody said upon entering his office was, "I'm not a lawyer, but...".

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:29 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:24 pm What I find interesting on this is that you DON'T need a waiver if you are a journalist conducting an interview. I've never seen that, and I've been involved with setting up or being interviewed hundreds of times (yay me). Even 60 Minutes or similar shows... no waiver required. I mean, they can still get sued if they fuck around with the truth, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly Borat (the franchise) can construe itself as journalism/documentary/reality-based whatever. And if someone is literally acting inappropriately on film, I wouldn't think that would be considered slander since it's a first-hand account. /notalawyer

Yeah, but it's tricky with Docs... That's a grey area. People distributing docs have to be very careful if they don't get a release... Lots and lots of examples of those folks getting sued for defamation. In fact, someone is currently suing Cohen over this film, per The Guardian story. Same thing with reality TV. Those folks go out to a restaurant, best believe every patron that appears on film is getting a waiver put in front of them. (Also, what brian said about signage.)

It's different with journalism. That's pretty clearly covered by First Amendment. You sit down with a reporter, and unless they outright make shit up, you are giving consent to be aired.

I mean, yeah, maybe Cohen and Co do these interviews without getting waivers and are just... rolling the dice? I find it hard to believe.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:29 pmAnd if someone is literally acting inappropriately on film, I wouldn't think that would be considered slander since it's a first-hand account. /notalawyer

The danger for this comes in the editing process. If you film someone for two hours, and use two minutes of the footage in your movie, there could easily be liability risk if the omissions and inclusions ultimately give a false or misleading impression.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:48 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:53 am

Meg Whitman sucks so, so much (ran Hewlett Packard into the ground while flailing around California's political circles). John Kasich defunded Planned Parenthood.

Shit like this is why Biden gets so much grief.

Quibi is now shutting its doors despite the leadership of super business genius CEO Whitman.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:39 pmThe danger for this comes in the editing process. If you film someone for two hours, and use two minutes of the footage in your movie, there could easily be liability risk if the omissions and inclusions ultimately give a false or misleading impression.

I think this is fair. If there's 120 minutes of footage of Guiliani and the actress, that means there's likely 119 minutes where he doesn't have both hands down the front of his pants grabbing his old dick.

Oh My

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:29 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:24 pm What I find interesting on this is that you DON'T need a waiver if you are a journalist conducting an interview. I've never seen that, and I've been involved with setting up or being interviewed hundreds of times (yay me). Even 60 Minutes or similar shows... no waiver required. I mean, they can still get sued if they fuck around with the truth, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly Borat (the franchise) can construe itself as journalism/documentary/reality-based whatever. And if someone is literally acting inappropriately on film, I wouldn't think that would be considered slander since it's a first-hand account. /notalawyer

My understanding is that they get people to sign waivers before their pranks, claiming to be documentary crews filming something else. In this case, Rudy thought he was being interviewed for some Conservative news program, so they probably got him to sign a waiver before the fake interview. I remember reading something or seeing an interview with Cohen years ago about how they brilliantly craft waivers to avoid lawsuits.

Are we sure that a Sasha Baron Cohen character doesn't run a laptop store in Delaware?

Seeing varying jokes of: "The next time Rudy Giuliani talks about 9-11 tell him to keep the age range of girls he wants to date to himself."

It's brutal. I love it.

Between the 60 Minutes interview, Rudy setting himself on fire, no one biting on the Hunter Biden nonsense the new debate rules, what are the chances of a full-on DJT mental breakdown tomorrow?

brian wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:35 pm Between the 60 Minutes interview, Rudy setting himself on fire, no one biting on the Hunter Biden nonsense the new debate rules, what are the chances of a full-on DJT mental breakdown tomorrow?

I thought they were pretty high without any of those things.

Can I take "Trump showed remarkable composure during a trying time, maybe things have clicked" instead?

"Today is the day Donald Trump became president. Period."

Hey guys!

Something to counter all of the negativity around here:

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:44 pm Hey guys!

Welcome back, Enoch.

I don't suppose Trump is going to like this vivisection of a speech Obama is giving about him, either, mocking his Chinese bank accounts and his response to the pandemic. He really might meltdown before the weekend.

Hoo boy.

For sure.

Welcome back, Barack.

This seems accurate (and if so, smart).

Yup. And here we fucking go.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:17 pm Yup. And here we fucking go.

No surprise.. He could lose 100%-0 and he isn't going to leave.. He has the leverage now that Iran interfered.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:17 pm Yup. And here we fucking go.

By sending emails to Dem registered voters from "proud boys" telling them to vote for Trump or else.

It beyond makes no sense.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:27 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:17 pm Yup. And here we fucking go.

No surprise.. He could lose 100%-0 and he isn't going to leave.. He has the leverage now that Iran interfered.

On his behalf? Wtf do you even try to read this shit?

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:03 pm

psunate77 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:27 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:17 pm Yup. And here we fucking go.

No surprise.. He could lose 100%-0 and he isn't going to leave.. He has the leverage now that Iran interfered.

On his behalf? Wtf do you even try to read this shit?

You are living under a rock if you think he is going to lose and just accept it.. He is going to have every attorney he knows, every senator, every Supreme Court member finding every little loop hole to keep him in power. He is already setting this all up. From Nov 4th to Jan 21 is going to be a total shit show.
I just don't see anyways this guy comes out and say hey I lost, good luck Joe. He already threaten an executive order to keep Biden from being in office, which he can't do, but he has done alot of shit over 4 years he wasn't allowed to do and he gave zero shits.

Hey, remember when some of you guys got really mad at me when I said Biden would never expand the Court because he cares too much about bipartisanship and would never pick that fight with the GOP?

Bipartisanship is such a weird campaign tactic against an unpopular incumbent.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:01 am Bipartisanship is such a weird campaign tactic against an unpopular incumbent.

Is it? I feel like appealing to some of those turned off by Trump isn’t a terrible thing.