University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case • Hacker News Board

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#191

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #181

vageli wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible. Is this true even when gathering evidence of a…

California has the same law as Florida. Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.

The news organization is free to play it, but the person who recorded it would have still broken the law and opened themselves up to prosecution.

https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#192

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #167

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems civics in the US are about to be rigged for one party rule. The good news is that it doesn't actually work that way. First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Drawing the lines different affects what party platforms need to be in order to get half of the seats, but there will still be two parties and they will still each control the government half of the time. Which…

> First past the post results in a two party system. Nobody can gerrymander that away. Really? Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.[1] A huge portion of the population wasn't permitted to vote (despite laws on the books being racially blind, most blacks were prevented from voting in many of these states up until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. A…

> Consider the Democratic party lock on the US southern states for roughly 50 years after reconstruction.

Yet each party still controlled the government around half of the time, because the Republicans took the North.

Each party will change the amount necessary to flip the marginal district. The districts in the South were harder for Republicans to flip than some others, so they took ones it was easier for them to get, and didn't take the ones they didn't need.

> But I'm NOT going to claim that single party rule is impossible when there are hundreds of examples of it across the world.

The rest of the world uses different voting systems (or lack thereof). There was "single party rule" in the USSR and it wasn't because of gerrymandering.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#193

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

pyronik19 wrote: post #89

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest threat to democracy has occurred from people who espouse language just like this, in several recent instances: the insurrection attempt on January 6th, where conspirators attempted to use violence to overturn a free and fair election, in Michigan, where factions of that same ideology planned the kidnapping and public execution of democratically elected leaders, and spates of domestic terrorism across the…

If you think the last election was above board I have a bridge to sell you.

Why did the Arizona audit, operated by right-aligned organizations, find more votes for Biden?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#194

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #181

vageli wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible. Is this true even when gathering evidence of a…

California has the same law as Florida. Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.

In California a recording without required consent is a crime when made. Intended use doesn't play into that. It is also separately prohibit from use as evidence in court except as evidence of violation of the law prohibiting such recording itself.

> If you wanted to play it on the news, however, you're still free to do that as far as I know.

Sure, if you want to advertise the crime you committed on the news you are permitted to do that.

There is no express prohibition on this in the California law, sure, but it probably is a good way to rack up civil liability as well as advertising your existing exposure to criminal liability. If Florida really has identical law in this area, I’d expect the same thing.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#195

Post by willis936 » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #72

chmod600 wrote: post #42

If schools have become as much political institutions as educational institutions -- and there's little doubt about that -- why do they get public money at all? The real conflict of interest here is politicians spending your money for their political goals.

> why do they get public money at all? Because we still believe there to be a societal benefit to an educated populace.

More than that: the market doesn't see past quarterly earnings. Private industry spends a lot on R&D but next to nothing on basic research [0]. Dollar for dollar, academic research that is not beholden to shareholder value theory produces science that is more useful for society.

0. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/u-s-r-d-performance-and-...

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#196

Post by sushibowl » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

inetsee wrote: post #165

mankyd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expert witnesses are hired as contractors; paid for their testimony. If they were being subpoenaed - compelled to be a witness - I am sure the matter would be different.

A naive legal question: can the plaintiffs subpoena the professors as expert witnesses?

Generally, no. Under the rules of civil procedure, a subpoena to testify may be quashed if it "requires disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study not requested by a party."

expert witnesses are much different from a regular witness since they have an exception to the hearsay rule (can testify about things they didn't directly observe themselves), their credentials are examined, they make a report, they are required to be paid, etc. Because of this you cannot subpoena them like a regular witness.

more info https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#197

Post by kodah » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #194

kodah wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has the same law as Florida. Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.

In California a recording without required consent is a crime when made . Intended use doesn't play into that. It is also separately prohibit from use as evidence in court except as evidence of violation of the law prohibiting such recording itself. > If you wanted to play it on the news, however, you're still free to do that as far as I know. Sure, if you want to advertise the crime you committed on the news you are…

Ah, today I learned. I had searched on this a while back but couldn't find provisions for the civil side of things.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#198

Post by R0b0t1 » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

ninjinxo wrote: post #170

lotsofpulp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.

Aren't there usually provisions to override requiring all party consent, if it becomes reasonably necessary as criminal (not civil) evidence or for your own legal/physical protection? Edit: I looked into it, nope, Florida is utterly insane - a child didn't get consent to record their rapist soliciting/threatening them, so the evidence was denied; On December 11, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court held in McDade v. State…

You should still record anyway. Use it in the court of public opinion.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#199

Post by Frondo » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

whatthesmack wrote: post #187

cmh89 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My state in the US (Oregon) has had universal mail-in voting for two decades and we don't have any voter fraud to speak of. There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.

> we don't have any voter fraud to speak of You probably mean you're not aware of any voter fraud. The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered, so it's possible fraud has in fact been occurring and it has not yet been discovered (and/or nobody in a position to do so is interested in discovering it).

In a 2016 audit by the then-Republican Secretary of State Dennis Richardson, 54 potential cases of voter fraud were found, out of more than 2 million votes cast.

> Richardson said the suspicious ballots broke down into several categories: 46 voters appeared to vote in Oregon and another state; six individuals listed as deceased voted; and two voters registered in Oregon voted twice.

From: https://www.opb.org/news/article/voter-fraud-oregon-secretar...

If you have better evidence, not conjecture, please say so.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#200

Post by _-david-_ » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #185

_-david-_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.

At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.

I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.