Failed Voice Over Actor Isn't Bitter at All Over FreedomWorks Dust Up *UPDATE

Bless his heart. Some dude who voiced commercials for an insurance company, and was once apparently an extra in some movies, is still angry that he was canned after leaving a rage-filled voicemail with FreedomWorks in a one-consent state. (Before using big words like “illegal,” guy should probably learn the law in that particular state.)

D.C. Douglas, aforementioned guy, created a video, sent a lengthy “look at me!” press release out about it to everyone and his mother, so out of pity I’ll be his Huckleberry because it’s obvious he thinks his 15 minutes aren’t finished. You have to applaud that glass-is-half-full mentality in this depressing economic climate! High five!

And now for the video.


[youtube 5maMGDV1gvg nolink]

Some know me from voice over, while others know me from my sporadic film or television work. There is a huge videogame contingent, too. But this post, my friends, is for the political crowd who found me through the Tea Party PSA and Palin/Bachmann Rock Opera.

And a long time coming, too!

Andrew Breitbart and his blogs of bloviation never entered my reality until FreedomWorks’ president wrote a post on BigGovernment.com that targeted me, personally, with half-truths, invasion of privacy, an illegal [editor’s note: Douglas left a voicemail in a one-party consent state, thus, not illegal, not an “invasion of privacy.” Next time don’t call people “retards” over politics, or if you do so, make sure it’s a state that requires two-party consent. Carry on!] recording and a healthy dose of McCarthyism. After researching Breitbart further, I knew one day I’d make a silly video about him. After all, the man purposely makes himself into a media buffoon to increase his profile and drive hits to his websites.

Now, I also have an admission to make… A part of me kinda likes him.

He reminds me of the unpopular kid at school who, after getting caught for some infraction, would use half truths to get out of it. And when it was obvious to everyone he was lying, he’d repeat it with a little more passion and indignation.

[…]

I can’t help but see it all as a ploy to achieve notoriety and status at the expense of truth and other people’s careers.

I fail to see how it is anyone’s fault but Douglas’s that his outrageous behavior in a voicemail resulted in his employer viewing him as a liability. Maybe he doesn’t understand the concept of cause and effect? Hopefully after making this video Douglas releases some of his bitterness and realizes that there are more intelligent ways to communicate disagreement than by drunk-dialing and regaling obscenities into a phone. If not, he can always make Internet videos, the success of which depends upon acknowledgement from his more-trafficked targets.

*UPDATE [Editor’s note]:

DC Dougals replied to me about this article on Twitter:

Douglas should examine the law as it relates to recorded conversation before throwing around potentially disparaging accusations as to the legality of another’s actions.

Even if Douglas placed his call from a two-party state (and it’s my understanding that in a case where the applicable laws of one state are more stringent than another, the laws of the former take precedence over the latter) he left a voicemail. One leaves a voice message with full knowledge that whatever they say is being recorded for the other party to listen to at a later time. Leaving a voice message implies consent and demonstrates knowledge that their remarks are being recorded: an intentional recording. As of such, the rules change and make one or two party laws irrelevant. Here is what the law states on voicemail, specific to FreedomWorks’s location:

In the District of Columbia, an individual may record or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication if he or she is a party to the communication, or has received prior consent from one of the parties, unless the recording is done with criminal or injurious intent. A recording made without proper consent can be punished criminally by a fine of no more than $10,000 or imprisonment for no more than five years, or both. D.C. Code Ann. 23-542.

However, disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded communication cannot be punished criminally if the contents of the communication have “become common knowledge or public information.” D.C. Code Ann. 23-554.

It would appear that the conversation was not illegally recorded, nor was it illegally posted as FreedomWorks was a party to the recording, as required by law. If an argument is to be made of “injurious intent,” it could be construed that the videos Douglas has done on FreedomWorks, its employees, Andrew Breitbart, et al. are themselves injurious as they could be interpreted as works extending beyond the bounds of satire and into defamation and/or slander. In my opinion, both would be silly.

.