100 controversial articles
-
-
100Comment
-
Originally posted by 4Pics
100
Comment
-
I'll report tonight - I already read it and IMHO, t's quite clear what Duck did was illegal. Of course, it is a judge who will ultimately make the decision if A V N decides to file chargesOriginally posted by MicroChick
Peaches.................Baddog!
Baddog..................Peaches!
Record each other! Then do some research to discover what the law says about one on one taping, message machine taping, and speakerphone taping.
Please report back to us no later than noon tomorrow!
Comment
-
Baddog, go back and read the posts.
Peaches, inform the *dog*.......didn't you say it was not illegal to tape the conversation you are having with another person on your telephone in your state? It differs from state to state.......case to case!
Dog, it was not a private conversation. There was no agreement between Luke and the caller that the conversation would be private.
Look at all the cell phone conversations that the public taped of poor Princess Diana. All illegal, but they popped up all over the internet. Look at all the private information that is posted on the boards. Wrong! Some very illegal.
I don't know all the details. But according to my legal sources, Luke did nothing ILLEGAL.Comment
-
They are all in CA, are they not? CA law is quite clear that all parties must know they are being taped.Originally posted by MicroChick
Peaches, inform the *dog*.......didn't you say it was not illegal to tape the conversation you are having with another person on your telephone in your state? It differs from state to state.......case to case!
Now you're bringing up something that happened IN THE UK as being relevant to this, lol! Quite a reach, even for you!
Comment
-
I am not into relationships, and as difficult as it may be for you to fathom, I am not the easiest person to get along with.Originally posted by MicroChick
Peaches, you would have no life if you couldn't follow me around from thread to thread -- board to board, with your idiotic comments. Baddog, Peaches is looking for a boyfriend. I think the two of you would be perfect for each other.
Obviously you know I am right, or you would not be pairing me up with your arch nemisis.
Nothing personal Peaches, I am just not the settling down type.
Comment
-
Oh fine, NOW you tell me! I have to spend all night using white out on the wedding invitations for "Peaches and Baddog"Originally posted by baddog
Nothing personal Peaches, I am just not the settling down type.
Comment
-
Confucy, Confucy, Confucy . . . . I thought you knew enough about me to know that I do have a legal background, and that I am aware that laws vary from state to state. This conversation (from what I have gathered) took place in California. GA law does not apply. CA law does.Originally posted by MicroChick
Baddog, go back and read the posts.
Peaches, inform the *dog*.......didn't you say it was not illegal to tape the conversation you are having with another person on your telephone in your state? It differs from state to state.......case to case!
Dog, it was not a private conversation. There was no agreement between Luke and the caller that the conversation would be private.
Look at all the cell phone conversations that the public taped of poor Princess Diana. All illegal, but they popped up all over the internet. Look at all the private information that is posted on the boards. Wrong! Some very illegal.
I don't know all the details. But according to my legal sources, Luke did nothing ILLEGAL.
Case closed.Comment
-
you are really looking pathetic here now. Unless Princess Di was using her cell phone in CA, it does not apply.Originally posted by MicroChick
Look at all the cell phone conversations that the public taped of poor Princess Diana. All illegal, but they popped up all over the internet. Look at all the private information that is posted on the boards. Wrong! Some very illegal.
Please try to keep your points relative if at all possible.
Thank youComment
-
hey you knew what I was when you met me . . . besides, I thought you were Ulfie'sOriginally posted by Peaches
Oh fine, NOW you tell me! I have to spend all night using white out on the wedding invitations for "Peaches and Baddog"
Comment
-
Ulfie seems to have skipped town and completely disappeared....I have that effect on men.Originally posted by baddog
hey you knew what I was when you met me . . . besides, I thought you were Ulfie's
Comment
-
well, I don't want to leave, I like it here, sorryOriginally posted by Peaches
Ulfie seems to have skipped town and completely disappeared....I have that effect on men.
Comment
-
Lensman can only hear so much about Duke Floored in one day. Please the man alone. Lensman is going to have Luke ford nightmares for weeks thanks to this thread
Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can doComment
-
Baddog, the first attorney who told me that a speakerphone conversation was not protected practices law in California.
I don't really care if the conversation was illegal if taped. I care about the pressure that was applied to Lensman to get him to side with A-V-N instead of his own employee, LF.
Did you read what A-V-N said about LF? They called him a gossip-monger with questionable ethics. It looks to me like those terms should apply to A-V-N. They were responsible for spreading the lies about a second female porn actress having tested HIV positive. They didn't check out the facts. I have read many *questionable* articles written by A-V-N.
How about a little peace. Damn, there are wars all over the place.Comment
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MicroChick
[B]CD, you are difficult not to like. I'm so use to be pounded into the ground by my *I hate confucy* fans, that I expect you to turn into Oprano Gonzo at any second and produce more ugly pictures which you swear are me.
I thought you had agreed to drop the subject...you almost made it a month. Is that anyway to treat someone thats trying to get you a job?
And we all know you need to raise the money.Assclown Bob Rice wants to BANG your credit card!"I am putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage."All the information above is my personal opinion.Comment
-
again I say.. The Man Resigned of His Own Free Will... Leave it at that and let Lens continue to run HIS business the way he sees fit. I would personally rather cut loose one rogue employee than let my entire empire go down the drain via legal channels. Whether Lens won or lost in a court battle it would still cost mucho dinero to do. Money he could well put toward further business endeavorsComment
-
I'll bet you 1k it wasn't.Originally posted by Peaches
I'll report tonight - I already read it and IMHO, t's quite clear what Duck did was illegal. Of course, it is a judge who will ultimately make the decision if A V N decides to file charges
Comment
-
I don't have $1KOriginally posted by dig420
I'll bet you 1k it wasn't. How about you tell us WHY it's not illegal?
Comment
-
Because you can't shout out your feelings to a crowded room which contains a reporter and expect to have a presumption of privacy. He made no effort to secure privacy until the conversation was well under way or almost finished. He's fucked.Originally posted by Peaches
I don't have $1K How about you tell us WHY it's not illegal?
The fact that he was on the phone doesn't somehow give him extra rights to privacy that he wouldn't have if he was standing right there talking in person.
You can tell a reporter not to print something until your dick falls off, that doesn't mean he can't or won't do it, and that's a lesson many have learned to their regret. The laws in cases like this are nearly always geared toward the freedom of the press.Last edited by dig420; 04-23-2004, 07:32 PM.Comment
-
double postComment
-
This isn't an issue of freedom of the press, it's an issue of taping a phone call w/o the permission of all the parties pursuant to CA law. Had he just reported it, I believe you are 100% correct. IMHO, it is the recording of the call where he screwed up.Originally posted by dig420
Because you can't shout out your feelings to a crowded room which contains a reporter and expect to have a presumption of privacy. He made no effort to secure privacy until the conversation was well under way or almost finished. He's fucked.
You can tell a reporter not to print something until your dick falls off, that doesn't mean he can't or won't do it, and that's a lesson many have learned to their regret. The laws in cases like this are nearly always geared toward the freedom of the press.
But again, as always, it is up to a judge to decide
Comment
-
Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?
Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com -
recent work - About meComment
-
I think you may be missing the point here - did it ever occur to you that the decision to pull the article was simply a personal one?Originally posted by MicroChick
Baddog, go back and read the posts.
Peaches, inform the *dog*.......didn't you say it was not illegal to tape the conversation you are having with another person on your telephone in your state? It differs from state to state.......case to case!
Dog, it was not a private conversation. There was no agreement between Luke and the caller that the conversation would be private.
Look at all the cell phone conversations that the public taped of poor Princess Diana. All illegal, but they popped up all over the internet. Look at all the private information that is posted on the boards. Wrong! Some very illegal.
I don't know all the details. But according to my legal sources, Luke did nothing ILLEGAL.
We're talking about AdultBeat... not the NY Times. This is a site meant to talk about adult/porn related gossip and news. If it were a major news outlet, or LF was being sent to jail, then it might be different.
You're trying to turn this into some debate or issue over laws, jurisdiction, personal rights, etc. Most probably, Lensman didn't then, and doesn't now, give a rat's ass about what the "law" says about taping someone without their knowledge and putting it on <b>his</b> website. He doesn't want LF to do that, and that's certainly his right. When you work for someone you have to follow their rules. LF wasn't fired over this, he resigned.
I understand he didn't like Lensman's decision, but he really only has two choices- agree to work under his rules, or resign. He decided to do the latter, which I can also understand, if he felt that strongly about it. But since it was LF's decision to leave, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're wanting done here??War National Damn Champions EagleComment
-
Give CONFUCY the job!!!Originally posted by Holly
I think you may be missing the point here - did it ever occur to you that the decision to pull the article was simply a personal one?
We're talking about AdultBeat... not the NY Times. This is a site meant to talk about adult/porn related gossip and news. If it were a major news outlet, or LF was being sent to jail, then it might be different.
You're trying to turn this into some debate or issue over laws, jurisdiction, personal rights, etc. Most probably, Lensman didn't then, and doesn't now, give a rat's ass about what the "law" says about taping someone without their knowledge and putting it on <b>his</b> website. He doesn't want LF to do that, and that's certainly his right. When you work for someone you have to follow their rules. LF wasn't fired over this, he resigned.
I understand he didn't like Lensman's decision, but he really only has two choices- agree to work under his rules, or resign. He decided to do the latter, which I can also understand, if he felt that strongly about it. But since it was LF's decision to leave, I'm not clear exactly what it is you're wanting done here??Assclown Bob Rice wants to BANG your credit card!"I am putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage."All the information above is my personal opinion.Comment
-
Originally posted by GonZo
Give CONFUCY the job!!!
It hurts to laugh this hard!!Comment
-
and therein lies your ignoranceOriginally posted by MicroChick
I don't really care if the conversation was illegal if taped.Comment
-
One more time for those who are not paying attention!!!Originally posted by Lensman
If he's gonna post stuff that explictly stated "off the record", then he doesn't need to work for me.
When someone says "off the record" you do not post it!!
Plain and simple!!~ loryn@loryntaylor . com ~
RIP TDComment
-
I must agree, though, Gonzo. Confucy would definitely outshine Luke in the position.Comment
-
ummmm, actually in the State of California that is exactly what it doesOriginally posted by dig420
.
The fact that he was on the phone doesn't somehow give him extra rights to privacy that he wouldn't have if he was standing right there talking in person.
Comment
-
California: Two PartyOriginally posted by Fletch XXX
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...aw-america.htm
Federal:
The federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq., prohibits the willful interception of telephone communication by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device without an applicable exemption. There are two principal exceptions:
Federal Exceptions
Consent: In the absence of more restrictive state law, it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).
*******
12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.Comment
-
Gonzo, usually I would have come to O-prano to rant and rave. I know O-prano could use the posts. Sorry!
However, you hurt my feelings when you wouldn't send me the url to the radio show where I was treated so unfairly. You said it would be archived. You told the world you didn't ban me. You broke my heart, you furcoat hussy.
Holly, I like Lensman. I like LF. I thought they made a great team. I do not respect A-V-N and their high-priced attorneys. I read about Luke's resignation, and I was saddened.
Everyone knows LF likes to tape everything and everyone. If A-V-N didn't like the story he posted, then they should have called him and worked out something so it didn't result in A-V-N calling Lensman and bitching. Let's say LF should not have done the story. What right did A-V-N have to over-react and immediately contact their attorney. This is the adult business. How about acting like adults.
I have a feeling that if LF didn't resign, he would have been fired. The point of this thread was to bring forth the truth and let the readers voice their opinions. Isn't that what is happening?Comment
-
is the world ready for a Confucy /KB gossip site?
It very well may be....
I think I am sick and tired of keeping my mouth shut on things as well.
There is no LOYALTY in this business, there are no ETHICS in this business and everyone I have come to love or admire is turning out to be a thief or con man...
Maybe it's time to put my thoughts into words on a website?
Does anyone think that I don't know what really goes on ???
I think I may have a viable idea coming on.......![](https://www.purevanilla.com/i/PVbanner_sig.gif"></a>)
Comment
-
Ya in LA still KB?
NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |Comment
-
You had a "feeling" and you wanted to "bring the truth."Originally posted by MicroChick
I have a feeling that if LF didn't resign, he would have been fired. The point of this thread was to bring forth the truth and let the readers voice their opinions. Isn't that what is happening?
Let's boil it down then.
You made assumptions, and the truth is he resigned.
Nothing more, nothing less.
However, it took 3 pages to discover this.Comment
-
I love ya, baddog, but we are talking about apples and kiwis!
You take great pictures, you are a hard worker, and you are a man about town. But quoting California law about private conversations does not apply in this case. SPEAKERPHONE! That is the magic word for the day.
Go back and read Dig's comments. I have nothing to add.Comment
-
funny, I don't see anywhere that an exception is made for SPEAKERPHONE.Originally posted by MicroChick
I love ya, baddog, but we are talking about apples and kiwis!
You take great pictures, you are a hard worker, and you are a man about town. But quoting California law about private conversations does not apply in this case. SPEAKERPHONE! That is the magic word for the day.
Go back and read Dig's comments. I have nothing to add.Comment
-
Here, this might help.Originally posted by MicroChick
I love ya, baddog, but we are talking about apples and kiwis!
You take great pictures, you are a hard worker, and you are a man about town. But quoting California law about private conversations does not apply in this case. SPEAKERPHONE! That is the magic word for the day.
Go back and read Dig's comments. I have nothing to add.
Go here and do a search for speakerphone. Be sure to check the box that says "All" so it will check every section of every code in the State's statutes.
Guess how many results you will getComment
-
That is why they said "OFF THE RECORD"!!!!Originally posted by MicroChick
Everyone knows LF likes to tape everything and everyone. If A-V-N didn't like the story he posted, then they should have called him and worked out something so it didn't result in A-V-N calling Lensman and bitching. Let's say LF should not have done the story. What right did A-V-N have to over-react and immediately contact their attorney. This is the adult business. How about acting like adults.
It appears you are in the habit of making decisions based solely on your emotions, which is fine, but sometimes you have to set your personal feeling aside and look at things for what they are. For example ?Off the record?
~ loryn@loryntaylor . com ~
RIP TDComment
-
KB, you devil.......you wouldn't be able to stay in one place long enough to hahahahaha your column and your trade secrets. When you find your Jewish princess, maybe then you will find the time to hahahahaha instead of scouting out all the females up for Miss GFY.Comment
-
GoFuckYourself..........please! Can't we eliminate the hahaha stuff for the words (w r i t e - w r i t e r)Comment
-
w<i></i>rite, w<i></i>indows, d<i></i>ocument, j<i></i>ava just a few you can't useOriginally posted by MicroChick
GoFuckYourself..........please! Can't we eliminate the hahaha stuff for the words (w r i t e - w r i t e r)Comment
-
Originally posted by baddog
w<i></i>rite, w<i></i>indows, d<i></i>ocument, j<i></i>ava just a few you can't use
~ loryn@loryntaylor . com ~
RIP TDComment
-
Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com
Comment
-
MCOriginally posted by MicroChick
KB, you devil.......you wouldn't be able to stay in one place long enough to hahahahaha your column and your trade secrets. When you find your Jewish princess, maybe then you will find the time to hahahahaha instead of scouting out all the females up for Miss GFY.
Never will I ever settle for anything less than I deserve.
That's why I will be the " man of leisure" for a long time.Comment
-
Loryn, I am not going on my emotions. I will tell you the same thing I told baddog.........read what Dig said.
Doesn't someone have a legal case involving a SPEAKERPHONE?
When an individual leaves a message on an answering machine believing that the message will be picked up by baddog since it's his machine that is taking the message, why isn't that message protected under the California law?
Because anyone can listen to it. The same thing applies with a speakerphone. The party talking on the speakerphone does not know who is on the other end. It could be one person...it could be one hundred people. Is the door closed and only the 12 people inside the office listening, or are people coming in and out of the office who are also hearing the conversation? There is a lack of privacy.
I personally have gotten pissed off at several of my friends who have had me on speakerphones when I didn't know it. My privacy is right out the hahahahahaha. Didn't everyone know that someone was on a speakerphone? The guy on the speakerphone sure did know that he was using his speakerphone.
I'm speakerphoned out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Comment
-
When some one says "off the record" to a journalist, what they say after that does not get posted on a public forum. Lensman's rules!! Period!!!Originally posted by MicroChick
Loryn, I am not going on my emotions. I will tell you the same thing I told baddog.........read what Dig said.
Doesn't someone have a legal case involving a SPEAKERPHONE?
When an individual leaves a message on an answering machine believing that the message will be picked up by baddog since it's his machine that is taking the message, why isn't that message protected under the California law?
Because anyone can listen to it. The same thing applies with a speakerphone. The party talking on the speakerphone does not know who is on the other end. It could be one person...it could be one hundred people. Is the door closed and only the 12 people inside the office listening, or are people coming in and out of the office who are also hearing the conversation? There is a lack of privacy.
I personally have gotten pissed off at several of my friends who have had me on speakerphones when I didn't know it. My privacy is right out the hahahahahaha. Didn't everyone know that someone was on a speakerphone? The guy on the speakerphone sure did know that he was using his speakerphone.
I'm speakerphoned out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~ loryn@loryntaylor . com ~
RIP TDComment
-
Has anyone written, "paid in full," on the back or front of their checks?
It reminds me of "off the record." It would be wonderful if both requests were honored. Good luck!Comment
-
With all respect, I am willing to bet that I am a little more versed in CA law than is Dig. I am sorry if he is the only one that feels the same as you, but it does not change the fact, that a speakerphone is a telephone, and there is a right of privacy in that both parties, by law, have to consent to the tape recording of the conversation.Originally posted by MicroChick
Loryn, I am not going on my emotions. I will tell you the same thing I told baddog.........read what Dig said.
Doesn't someone have a legal case involving a SPEAKERPHONE?
When an individual leaves a message on an answering machine believing that the message will be picked up by baddog since it's his machine that is taking the message, why isn't that message protected under the California law?
Because anyone can listen to it. The same thing applies with a speakerphone. The party talking on the speakerphone does not know who is on the other end. It could be one person...it could be one hundred people. Is the door closed and only the 12 people inside the office listening, or are people coming in and out of the office who are also hearing the conversation? There is a lack of privacy.
I personally have gotten pissed off at several of my friends who have had me on speakerphones when I didn't know it. My privacy is right out the hahahahahaha. Didn't everyone know that someone was on a speakerphone? The guy on the speakerphone sure did know that he was using his speakerphone.
I'm speakerphoned out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your attempting to compare a speakerphone to an answering machine makes me think you are trying to win a DVD player or something. Talk about apples and kiwis.
If you call me, and leave a message on my answering machine, you know you are being recorded. I know that whomever leaves a message on my answer machine is going to be recorded. Ergo, both parties know the conversation is being recorded. Requirements under CA law have been met.
Sure LF could have just taken notes and reported them if he wanted, and there would not be any legal issues. That isn't what he did. Not only did he violate law by recording the conversation without the consent of all parties, he was stupid enough to tell it to the world.Comment
-
Here ya go KB... dont say I never gave ya anything playa.Originally posted by kBizzle
is the world ready for a Confucy /KB gossip site?
It very well may be....
I think I am sick and tired of keeping my mouth shut on things as well.
There is no LOYALTY in this business, there are no ETHICS in this business and everyone I have come to love or admire is turning out to be a thief or con man...
Maybe it's time to put my thoughts into words on a website?
Does anyone think that I don't know what really goes on ???
I think I may have a viable idea coming on.......
Why dont you and Confucy go hit up Ynotradio and get them to give you a radio show? Confucy is addicted to em...and you could get an hours worth of fame a week!
Are you a player or a stayer?Assclown Bob Rice wants to BANG your credit card!"I am putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage."All the information above is my personal opinion.Comment
Comment