Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
Defamation through editing is...Was he charged with a crime claiming he edited the tape?Uh, no. He paid him for secretly recording him.Nape. He edited the tape dishonestly --- what does he do that isn't done that way --- and portrayed the employee as complicit. That employee could see, as anyone could, that this klown in ridiculous getup was probably insane, and played along to get information out of him which he then took to the authorities. He paid that fine because he was liable. You don't "buy" your way out of liability; that ain't how it works.
Or are you suggesting O'Keefe paid the man $100,000 for his collection of Spider Man comics?
You don't "pay" your smear subject for that. You get charged with a crime by the state.
EDITING is not a crime. Recording someone without their knowledge is.
It is if you file suit. And the victim did.
That's entirely separate from what the state could charge (but didn't) for surreptitious recording. You could smear without surreptitious recording, and you could surreptitiously record without smearing. O'Klepto chose to do both, and he paid for his choice.