PDA

View Full Version : Mel Gibson: Is his career over?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Lacey
07-11-2010, 03:32 AM
OK, I agree the guy's a despicable man and that his mouth seems to have exploded. But, just one question, can his wife really record him, will that really stand up in court? Or is it a moot point if reporting what he said has ruined his reputation. Unfortunately, I am quite sure he has enough money to fight what she said he said, not saying he will win, but just that he will carry it on until she has run out of money trying to drag him down.

Norlite
07-11-2010, 03:37 AM
Wow. It sounds like his career was already on the decline before the latest outburst, if this is the sort of work he was getting.....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beaver_(film)




As of July 9, 2010, a leaked racist tirade by Mel Gibson had caused its distributor, Summit Entertainment, to suspend production of the film indefinitely.


It is wiki, so who knows how accurate it is.

Eden
07-11-2010, 03:56 AM
just one question, can his wife really record him, will that really stand up in court?
It is legal to record conversations or even phone calls in which you are one of the participators (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/), so yes it was legal, and will stand up in court, IMO.

overedge
07-11-2010, 04:09 AM
It is legal to record conversations or even phone calls in which you are one of the participators (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/), so yes it was legal, and will stand up in court, IMO.

From the website you cited:

Twelve 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. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

The conversation took place in California, so the taping may not be legal if there wasn't mutual consent - unless this falls under some kind of exceptional circumstance.

Eden
07-11-2010, 04:19 AM
My ex is a cop, and I know it's an international law that you can record conversation in which you are present.
This is how the journalists and cops work. They or ordinary people don't need to ask for permission.
I'll try to find a link.

Eden
07-11-2010, 04:32 AM
Here it is

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.

From: Recording Phone Calls and Conversations (http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations)

Gibson's lawyers have filed (http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/64569.aspx) against Oksana for leaking the tape to the media, and not for the fact that she recorded the conversation between them.
They obtained a restraining order against Oksana forbidding her to release the tape, which is now part of sealed evidence in the custody case.

cruisin
07-11-2010, 05:30 AM
When you had too much to drink and/or get extremely angry, your true feelings tend to come out. I think it's good that racist people don't have the sense to keep their true feelings to themselves, otherwise how else would you identity them.

Good point.


Yeah, for some reason, Polanski has been forgiven by Hollywood. But I don't know if I could even watch a movie Gibson directed anymore.

As horrible as Gibson's vile ranting is, Polanski is a child molester.

overedge
07-11-2010, 08:00 AM
Gibson's lawyers have filed (http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/64569.aspx) against Oksana for leaking the tape to the media, and not for the fact that she recorded the conversation between them.
They obtained a restraining order against Oksana forbidding her to release the tape, which is now part of sealed evidence in the custody case.

I'm not trying to be anal about this (really!) but the same website says that if both parties are in the same state when the conversation or phone call takes place, then the state law applies and not the federal law.....and California is one of the states that requires both parties to consent to recording.

It's not clear from the stories about the tape where the conversation took place or if both parties were in the same place. It sounds to me like Gibson is on the phone, but it's not clear where he was calling from.

ArtisticFan
07-11-2010, 01:06 PM
As horrible as Gibson's vile ranting is, Polanski is a child molester.

But the thing to remember is that Polanski did what he did in a different time period than Gibson. There was no TMZ, Internet, etc. We weren't shown drunken photos of Polanski or interviews with people who were in the bar that night like we were with Gibson.

In fact, the majority of the public couldn't tell you what Polanski exactly did other than a two sentence explanation that has been on television recently with news of him being possibly brought back. Gibson's previous comments and actions were played over and over again. His new ones are too.

People do have short memories on this type of thing. If ones new behavior is such that it makes it hard to believe there was ever a problem. While what Polanski did was vile and horrible, he supposedly didn't continue in the behavior itself. He led a productive life - though on the run - that didn't exhibit the same type of behavior. Gibson's life is not showing any signs of rehabilitation. He is still making comments and now appears to have domestic violence issues.

I guess I'm saying that it doesn't really matter whose crime is worse in the minds of the general public or Hollywood elite. It is the one whose crimes are most visable at the time that will receive punishment.

To answer the original question. Gibson's career is done for as long as he continues this path. That will last as long as the behavior continues and he shows no remorse. That is to say he can turn it around, but the truth is that he probably doesn't see the need to do so.

He doesn't seem to see that there is anything wrong with his beliefs or behavior. That is probably the saddest part of all for him. His kids, ex-wives, etc. can move past him and his antics. His former agents, business partners, etc. can find new clients and projects. He's still going to have to live with himself.

orbitz
07-11-2010, 03:36 PM
Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin are both almost cut from the same cloths. They're both seem on the outside like the greatest pal you would want to have around - funny, intelligent, nice, etc. - but privately they both have shown what ugly people they can be and are in real life if they felt that someone has crossed them. I have never been able to see Alec Baldwin in the same light again since his rant to his daughter a few years ago was made public. I shudder to think what his daughter goes through everytime he's upset at her. Creepy.

Ziggy
07-11-2010, 03:38 PM
Let's hope it is. :P

reckless
07-11-2010, 05:44 PM
Under California law, Penal Code section 632, it is illegal to tape a private phone call without every person's consent. A violation is a misdemeanor, subject to a possible $1,000 fine and, iirc, a short jail sentence. The recording also cannot be used in any judicial proceeding, except for a prosecution under that law. I believe a victim of a recording may also sue for $1,000. (I've had the law come up in a few cases, but it's been awhile, so I'm going on memory.)

Given this law, the Gibson recording cannot be used in court and Oksana could get in legal trouble for the recording. As a practical matter, the PR impact will probably mean nothing happens to her.

orbitz
07-11-2010, 07:53 PM
I'm sure Oksana and her team weighed the decision of breaking the law versus the damage it will do to Gibson's public image and decided that the latter option was worth the consequence.

Eden
07-11-2010, 11:49 PM
Under California law, Penal Code section 632, it is illegal to tape a private phone call without every person's consent. A violation is a misdemeanor, subject to a possible $1,000 fine and, iirc, a short jail sentence. The recording also cannot be used in any judicial proceeding, except for a prosecution under that law. I believe a victim of a recording may also sue for $1,000. (I've had the law come up in a few cases, but it's been awhile, so I'm going on memory.)

Given this law, the Gibson recording cannot be used in court and Oksana could get in legal trouble for the recording. As a practical matter, the PR impact will probably mean nothing happens to her.
Thanks for explaining. I thought a Federal law is above State law, guess I'm wrong.
It is interesting, though. What happens regarding journalists' recordings when they are doing journalist investigations, or cops putting recording device on their sources, or people capturing all kinds of incidents or events on their cellular phones?! What happens regarding stores having hiden cameras?

Norlite
07-12-2010, 12:01 AM
Don't know about journalists. Cops get warrants. Stores can't record audio, just video.