This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Depends on the law of California.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, taping someone without their consent IS illegal. And California is a "two-party-consent" state, which in practice means that ALL parties to a conversation must give permission for that recording. Further, under California law, the release of such a recording must also be given permission by all participants. This was not done: That is a separate issue, and it rendered the release of the recording illegal, with a new limitation period. This article doesn't mention legalities because, well, "Orange man bad". Aeroview854 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it probably doesn't mention them because they haven't featured prominently in the news. But thanks for your response.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't mention legalities because, well, "Orange man bad". -- There is no evidence for this assertion, which frankly is a blatant projection of extreme bias. And I'm left wondering how the illegality of a damning tape makes the person captured on the tape any less bad. BTW, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? No one has been charged with doing anything illegal, let alone convicted. -- Jibal (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Q&A site or blog. Please take your legal questions, which have no relevance here, to your favorite legal authority. -- Jibal (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without re-opening this contentious discussion any further, I would like to note that while it is true that California is a “2 party consent state” and @Aeroview854 did not in-accurately describe the laws basic elements, in practice the situation is legally much more complicated. If Access Hollywood/NBC broke any California laws it wasn’t illegally recording Trump. To preempt what would devolve into tedious and constant litigation, California broadly recognizes that within certain circumstances, such as a reality show host on set, wearing a mic and surrounded exclusively by network staff, had consented to being recorded, even if this interpretation was found to be inapplicable, as Trump was physically on NBC's property for the duration of the recording, his consent to be recorded was not needed. As far as the the legality of the release is concerned, as is once again standard, NBC secured contractual rights to any and all such content always from the onset (imagine if participants on reality TV actually had the right to haggle over exactly what recordings of them could or could not be released). California’s 2 party consent law could have maybe allowed Trump to sue or even press criminal charges had they released a clearly distorted cut of the tape, but that was not the case. Further, as the article mentions, NBC consulted with their legal counsel prior to releasing the tape and were re-assured. It is not conceivable that Trump, given his lengthy and extreme track record with regards to filing civil suits, would have refrained in this situation. OgamD218 (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The effects of this tape on the election were greatly lessened by the release one hour later by Wikileaks of the stolen Clinton campaign emails. I'm surprised there's no mention of this. I'll see if I can dig up some reliable sources discussing it. -- Jibal (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
