Legal questions...

[Saunders]

I know many are saying this recorded rant is cause for Bo to be fired (on it's own, it's not). But... I'm curious if it could end up in a counter-suit. My understanding is that depending on the state, you cannot record someone during a conversation without their consent and use it as cause for termination.

 

Here's Nebraska's statutes regarding recording: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-290

 

Anyone know?

[TheKiD]

'eh... moot point. if he was fired, this recording would not be the stated reason for termination.

[presidentjlh]

There could still be a potential claim to damage to reputation, maybe.

 

But I've only just started law school.

[sd'sker]

There could still be a potential claim to damage to reputation, maybe.

 

But I've only just started law school.

they won't teach you about this.

 

in fact, they really won't teach you anything.

[bugeater17]

No. Comment was made in public with n expectation of privacy. The cited statutes deal with electronic and wire taping

[presidentjlh]

There could still be a potential claim to damage to reputation, maybe.

 

But I've only just started law school.

they won't teach you about this.

 

in fact, they really won't teach you anything.

That is indeed what I have surmised so far.

[Hunter94]

from a fan perspective, they were his own words, he owns them...........

[carlfense]

There could still be a potential claim to damage to reputation, maybe.

 

But I've only just started law school.

Not when it's his own statement doing the damage.

[krc1995]

anyway, I thought Nebraska was a one person consent state?

[SECHusker]

I know many are saying this recorded rant is cause for Bo to be fired (on it's own, it's not). But... I'm curious if it could end up in a counter-suit. My understanding is that depending on the state, you cannot record someone during a conversation without their consent and use it as cause for termination.

 

Here's Nebraska's statutes regarding recording: http://nebraskalegis...?statute=86-290

 

Anyone know?

 

Not familiar with Nebraska law, but it is my opinion that there wouldn't be a counter-suit against the university because the university did not release the tap, some third party.

 

@sd'sker you speak the truth.

[carlfense]

There could still be a potential claim to damage to reputation, maybe.

 

But I've only just started law school.

they won't teach you about this.

 

in fact, they really won't teach you anything.

That's what clerking/clinics are for.

[Saunders]

Thanks guys, just curious.

[Flood]

Expectation of privacy goes out the window.

 

I worked for many years in broadcasting and we occasionally read about legal cases with similar circumstances.

 

Bo was in a room preparing for an interview, with a specific purpose of being recorded. He was well aware there were cameras and microphones in plain view, and knew they could be active at any time. Think things like soundcheck before a concert. Broadcast crews are constantly verifying the gear, and the legal assumption is that in such a situation it is already assumed the cameras and mics are rolling.

 

Consent and the two-party argument goes out the window for the same reason.

 

If anyone has a legal claim here, it would be the media company that had the tape copied or stolen. The recording was their property, and theirs alone. They would be able to sue and win, probably, if they wanted to go to the trouble.

 

Even if Bo could find a legal claim, he would be a fool to pursue it. A likely loss and a PR nightmare.

 

No winners in these types of cases, even if they do get to court.

[Judoka]

anyway, I thought Nebraska was a one person consent state?

My understanding as well.

[Flood]

One consent, two party consent, it doesn't matter. The context is what matters, as I posted above.

 

Bo had just finished a post game presser, and was prepping for an interview. During that time, recording gear was being taken down, set up for the next interview, checked for levels and pre-amps and so on.

 

There is no consent in such a situation. It is simply assumed. In the same way that you can hear a politician speaking crap when they think the mic is off. Same deal. Happens all the time.

 

What is more unusual is that, in this case, someone with what seems a large agenda, waited years to release it at a time that would cause the biggest headache for everyone concerned.