Casey Luskin (of Discovery Institute) falls flat on his face

stonehartfloydfan Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - oh man owned! Luskin you lose man

freedom0f5peech Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - 5/5

PragnorVorn Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - LMAO! Great opening!!!

mtanti87 Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - looks like a battle of attorney advice.

InvasiveEndoscopy Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - LOL. good video.

judgemartiniz Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - What a waste of an opportunity to ask questions about intelligent design. Who cares what this guys opinion is about some issue involving DMCA and youtube. He's involved in the evolutions vs. creationism debate.

ScrewLimbBizkit Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - Because he broke the law by filing those DMCA's.

TheStephenation Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - Casey Luskin complaining that there's a lot of false information out there? Pretty sure they have a word for that sort of thing...

Scrapheap71 Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - One question, do you care about honesty?

Scrapheap71 Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - Casey Luskin is such a fucking liar. Laws prohibiting phone calls from being recorded without consent were thrown out durring the Lewinski/Clinton fiasco. When Linda Tripp recorded Monica Lewinski without her consent, the state of Maryland charged Linda Tripp with violating state law. In court, Linda Tripp's attorneys argued that you can't make it illegal to record evidence of a crime. The judge agreed, the law was overtuned, and national legal precedent was set.

alp0062 Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - Careful, they have robot lawyers with lasers.

GetMeThere1 Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - Well, at least we get CLEAR confirmation what lying and manipulative bastards these people are (because, for example, he tried to imply that DI had nothing to do with the DCMA claims). THANKS TO QDragon 1337 for making this call and sharing his experience with us!!

Sniomhaiche Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - QDragon1337 rocks.

CaptChrisT Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - Be careful DiscoveryInstituteID. I don't know if the law has changed recently but I think the DI is right when they said recording phone calls without the other person's knowledge is illegal. I think it falls under wire tapping laws. I would check for yourself I'm not sure.

CaptChrisT Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - lol no turns out the DI is wrong. You only need to have one party's consent to record a phone call. A simple google search told me that. DI fails again. Are you getting anywhere with your personal fight against them?

CaptChrisT Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - Hmmm But Washington state where Luskin works DOES require both parties to be notified. I don't know how that law works if the call is made out of state.

0ldsage Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - Luskin is such a fucking scumbag liar.

VoteNixon2008 Says:

Jul 29, 2009 - Future supreme court case: Luskin V Dragon

m0ufin Says:

Aug 11, 2009 - It is not the recording that matters, but the distribution. He may get in trouble for putting it on Youtube, but I don't see why.