Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)

9. If they did, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen...

Reply to NastyRiffraff (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 26, 2018, 04:18 PM

Oct 2018

They publicly asked for permission.
They were publicly refused permission.
They used it anyway.

...and why would Fox want to promote the fact that this nut job has been driving around like this for a year?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

THAT's going to leave a mark! [View all] brooklynite Oct 2018 OP

K&R... spanone Oct 2018 #1

Haaha. That's funny "because you aren't a reliable source of what's going on in our country today." Bfd Oct 2018 #2

If Fox were to get the rights you can bet we'll never see the pictures again. Hugin Oct 2018 #3

Wait, they asked permission? durablend Oct 2018 #4

Yes, like the fucking grifters they represent, they offer nothing in exchange, except a mention. TheBlackAdder Oct 2018 #5

In fairness, that's a standard permission request; every other network does the same brooklynite Oct 2018 #7

Yep. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask first, to see if they can get it on the cheap before paying. TheBlackAdder Oct 2018 #12

I would include language limiting their right if I responded. LiberalFighter Oct 2018 #13

They asked... TwistOneUp Oct 2018 #16

Perfect Augiedog Oct 2018 #6

She and her husband should keep an eye out NastyRiffraff Oct 2018 #8

If they did, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen... brooklynite Oct 2018 #9

I'll admit when I'm wrong... brooklynite Oct 2018 #19

can fox use it if they take the image from cnn or some other network JI7 Oct 2018 #33

She said yes to other news stations. irisblue Oct 2018 #10

Pic in question FakeNoose Oct 2018 #11

Hey! this is a different van than the one CNN got on video FakeNoose Oct 2018 #14

CNN's picture is of the driver's side of the van. Staph Oct 2018 #15

Nope. Right side and left side. MineralMan Oct 2018 #20

What I want to know is why wasn't this asshole ever ticketed for obstructed visibility . . . . ET Awful Oct 2018 #17

Well the Feds say that he has an arrest record FakeNoose Oct 2018 #18

There's all kinds of vehicle wraps that you can see out of OriginalGeek Oct 2018 #24

You don't need to have rear windows clear whopis01 Oct 2018 #29

I'm specifically referring to the passenger side window n/t ET Awful Oct 2018 #31

It didn't appear to obscure the side view mirror. n/t whopis01 Oct 2018 #32

Not perfectly legal in every state. I can tell you it wouldn't fly in California or Mass ET Awful Oct 2018 #34

What I said was perfectly legal in every state was a panel van with no rear or read side windows. whopis01 Oct 2018 #35

Anyone who decoupages RW political crap all over their car windows is a nut case. YOHABLO Oct 2018 #21

Yes !!! Haggis for Breakfast Oct 2018 #22

It just says "Link To Tweet" when I open nt Cetacea Oct 2018 #23

AP's release is based on them being a subscription service LTG Oct 2018 #25

thats awesome kaotikross Oct 2018 #26

Sorry haydukelives Oct 2018 #27

They probably hear that a lot. bitterross Oct 2018 #28

I'm confused. what's so special about this photo? libdem4life Oct 2018 #30