Dead wrong. Even on a surface reading of the statute, he seems to have violated it. As an agent/employee of the video tape service provider he most definitely knowingly and publicly disclosed personally identifiable information about a customer of the provider. [USC 18 § 2710(b)1] The statute does not say how detailed that “personally identifiable information” must be. It doesn’t require that you disclose their rentals or address. Nothing much more personally identifiable than the name of a public figure.

On one of the other blogs someone derided the offense as minor, saying it was a civil violation “only” punishable by a $2500 civil award. Even $2500 is a considerable sum to a small business, but that’s a clear minimizing of the statute remedies, which allow for no less than $2500 actual damages, plus punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs, plus “such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.” That can really add up, especially to a small business.

Wikipedia says the offender is liable for “up to” $2500. They’re wrong. That’s the floor, not the ceiling. The ceiling is wide open.

In short, regardless of Carlson’s reaction or inbred asininity, Chuckles’ firing was copiously justified from the employer’s position. All those making the libertarian arguments should remember who gets to pick up that legal tab–the employer. Chuckles made himself a major liability.

Tucker seems over defensive, but I haven’t been stalked. Chuckles seems immature. Any service business would want to get rid of such an employee – what they have to sell (especially since Netflix is eating a lot of their lunches) is service. Chuckles clearly doesn’t understand that. And probably doesn’t care. He’ll just get another job.

Having read all the aftermath, I’m sure Chuckles didn’t intend what he said to be a threat, and was sincere in his statement that he wouldn’t disclose Carlson’s address. But how is somebody like Carlson supposed to know that up front? There’s a lot of crazy people in this world, and they make threats in a lot of different ways. We all know how to read “nudge, nudge, wink, wink”, don’t we? If I said: “Of course *I* would never dream of going to [idiot liberal politician's] house and tossing frozen urine on it, even though that’s exactly what he/she deserves”, should that liberal politician not worry?

And if you want to talk about first impressions, Kathy, I’d point out that nowhere did Chuckles ever suggest that Carlson was rude or inappropriate to him in their initial encounter. It was only Carlson’s politics that led Chuckles to post that nasty comment about both Carlson and the woman with him. Chuckles could have simply apologized to Carlson when he came in, said he hadn’t meant any harm but sees now how his actions could be misinterpreted. I note that Chuckles hasn’t, from what I’ve seen, described his own comments to Carlson when Carlson came back in. Did Carlson start out with his “destroy you” comment, or did he start out calmly, and Chuckles responded by telling him to go screw himself and standing on his “first amendment rights”?

In what I read as something like stream-of-consciousness, he says “he could” tell you what they rented “if you really want to know.” And he clearly says he can’t share personal info like address. So he has not violated any law here.

Anyone who can read this post and say with a straight face that it is a “threat” is living on a different planet than I am.

However, Chuckles learned the hard way that zeros-and-ones are not confined to one’s friends, even if that’s who you’re writing for … well, not unless you block your blog from directories and search engines and such.

I knew zippo about Tucker before this (I know the Jon Stewart interview, but I think of that as “Fox” not of Tucker) … and care even less about him now than I did after Jon’s interview in 2004. He is a jerk, but that’s not against the law. Unfortunately.

If you own a business, you are free to sabotage it by acting like an idiot, provided you stay within the law, which this kid might have. But since it was not his business, it was not his place to create problems with a customer, all other issues aside. If management saw fit to dismiss him, they had the right.

If I were Chuckle’s boss I’d likely have fired him also, without any added pressure, if the post had been brought to my attention. Chuckles made it an employment issue all by himself. Carlson was indeed petty and mean to push it after the post came down (assuming the accounts are correct) but that doesn’t make Chuckles some kind of hero for being an immature dumbass in the first place. The offending quote:

“I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know.”

I would read that as “Just ask, and I’ll tell you.” The applicable federal statute can be found here. It reads in part:

A video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person…

Yep, I’d fire him, he’s a major legal liability. Big jerk vs. little jerk, not David vs. Goliath. Neither of them has my sympathy at this point.

It was a silly mistake, but the kid took the post down right away, maybe ten people had seen it, and if Tucker hadn’t made a federal case out of it, it would have been a passing joke among a handful of friends. Now the whole world knows Tucker is a whining idiot who is desperate to get press any way he can to boost what I understand are his dismal ratings.

Not to mention, if Tucker had let it go Chuckles would still have a job. I don’t know what the going rate for psuedo-pundits is, but I figure old Tuck’s got to be making at least in the low six figures. I doubt Chuckles was getting much above minimum wage. I think we hit the David v. Goliath criteria when Tucker got the kid fired. That was just petty and mean.

If some random stranger passed you on the street and said “I think you’re an asshole and I know where you live”, would you be just a tad nervous? If YOU went to a video store, and the clerk told you, “I heard you’re the bitch who slept with my sister’s boyfriend, and now I know where you live”, wouldn’t you be more than a bit upset at the clerk? All of you defending “Chuckles” seem to be of the opinion that because Carlson is an arrogant jerk on TV, that he’s not entitled to the same common courtesy as the rest of us when interacting with store clerks and others outside of his job. That’s not right.

I will also say that there appears to be actual evidence that Tucker did and said everything the clerk alleged, because Tucker admitted to being very aggressive. The only real breach here would be the fact that Tucker admitted the post is what pissed him off, and that post is not threatening in any way, and he just lied about it to the press. So who’s being slandered here?

Chuckles did nothing wrong. He tried to make the Tuckbag happy by taking down the post, but that wasn’t good enough for the Tuckbag. The Tuckbag wanted to “fucking destroy” Chuckles.

He also did nothing to get fired for. He did not say the name of the video store, or any information other than that Tucker had opened an account there. That is the ONLY information he gave on his blog.

For those of you who seem to think he gave out Tuckbag’s personal information, you are WRONG. 123% wrong. He gave out nothing.

Please check your facts before posting in the future.

That said, don’t expect any sympathy for Carlson from me. He’s a windy small-minded pompous gasbag, a size twelve ego in a size three soul. (I’m being generous today.) I’m not a big Jon Stewart fan at all, but when Stewart ripped Carlson a new one on live TV, he earned a permanent place in my heart. It was a glorious example of why you do not, EVER, try to one-up a professional at his own game. And target Carlson earned every bit of the hilarious take-down abuse he received from Stewart. He practically begged for it, trying to mouse-trap a professional comedian into playing straight man for him. Dumb with a capital D.

I’m pretty sure that’s not an actual picture of Carlson, because I don’t see a bow tie in the appropriate spot.

BTW, if Tucker is from San Francisco, does that mean he has the same values as the conservative media’s been tagging Speaker Pelosi with?

free speech allows him to say what he said about carlson without being arrested or ordered to pay money. free speech does not allow him to disclose carlson’s private video rental records as he offered to do.

yes, free speech does allow him to offer it, but actually disclosing it is another story, and i’m not sure “free speech” actually would be relevant in that case, either.

don’t be disengenuous, and twist the words of the blogger. he said “i could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know.”

you are acting as if he actually did tell us.

it’s obvious to all except the joke-impaired (ie, the right) that he was being sarcastic.

if he told us what tucker “i hardly know her” carlson rented, then your righteous indignation might have some basis in reality.

but, as usual, the right is angry and up in the air about woulda-coulda-shoulda (’it’s irresponsible not to speculate what the blogger would have told us’) instead of what actually is.

how’s that rapture/end of days thing coming anyway?