Talk:Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 11 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved early per WP:SNOW — JFG ^talk 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording → Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape – There was some discussion about what this article should be named in the past (see #Article title), but I just had the idea of what it should be. Most sources refer to it as the Access Hollywood tape, not a Billy Bush tape. See here, here, here, and here for a few recent examples. Note that it should be presented as Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape, but the requested move template doesn't allow for the italics. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Most mentions of the recording give hardly even a nod to Billy Bush, but Access Hollywood is always referenced as the key identifying feature. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. The video is almost always referred to as the "Access Hollywood tape", always in connection to Donald Trump and rarely in connection with Billy Bush. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Many more sources can be found where tape is referred to with Access Hollywood in title. Can't think of many titling it with Billy Bush. DankToot69 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator said, this is the name used by the media.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Access Hollywood is usually named when describing the tape.LM2000 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. The media always seem to say "the Access Hollywood tape" now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - common name. Neutrality^talk 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common name. --IagoQnsi (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WaPo story vs. Full video

I've read that the video on the Access Hollywood website was longer than the one originally published by the Washington Post. Can someone confirm this? When and how was the longer video released?72.76.163.6 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC) failedSee pinned comment.2601:146:4000:F400:84B7:D4DD:2FE:13A1 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Maybe there's an archive of the video being on the Access Hollywood website? It can also be found in YouTube maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcZcTnykYbw72.76.163.6 (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Locker room talk" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Locker room talk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Locker room talk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaioa (T C L) 18:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal question

Is taping someone without their consent not illegal?

62.226.72.234 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the law of California.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)