Discussion for article #238912
The videos are incredibly misleading, sure. But this is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.
California has laws against videoing private citizens without their explicit consentā¦
6 Likes
āThe Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work,ā
I see. So YOU get to claim that, but weāre supposed to assume that PP is guilty until proven innocent and is not following āall applicable laws in the course ofā its tissue donation work? Fuck that. Prosecute these fuckers. NOW.
[quote]California Law Penal Code Ā§ 632, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, makes it illegal for an individual to monitor or record a āconfidential communicationā whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device. California is known as a ātwo-partyā state, which means that recordings are not allowed unless all parties to the conversation consent to the recording.
Under Penal Code Ā§ 632Ā©, āconfidential communicationā includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.[/quote]
Source: http://stimmel-law.com/ru/article/secret-recording-conversations-california-crime
Yes, they were in a restaurant, but it is the expectation of the parties that determines whether confidentiality and privacy were anticipated. It is an issue of FACT, not law, and is therefore for the jury to determine. They can and should be prosecuted. Let the jury sort it out.
14 Likes
Neener, neener, neener!
1 Like
Ahh, no itās not. You obviously donāt know California law despite throwing around terms like āprior restraintā. No one can make an audio or video recording without the consent of all parties.
3 Likes
The group is the same one that previously released three covertly shot videos of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.
No it didnāt. It released video of Planned Parenthood leaders disusing compensation for the costs of transporting and handling aborted fetuses to researchers, which is legal, that was deceptively edited to look like they were discussing the sale of aborted fetuses to researchers, which isnāt.
8 Likes
Mindset of Daleiden and his fellow OāKeefe-esque propagandists at the āCenter for Medical Progressā:
Ours is a righteous cause, and therefore we are are not beholden to state laws or the standard ethics of journalism and documentary production.
2 Likes
Damn, What is wrong with this writer?
2 Likes
isnāt there a law against libel ā¦cause thatās exactly what this is by putting this out there they have tryed to make it sem that P.P was doing something they wernātā¦which was clearly a lie on the part of the people making the video that was their intentā¦sue these assholes make them admit what they were doing was to interfere with the running of and disrupt the financial operation of said PP and to disparage its reputationā¦now Iām not a lawyer hell i donāt even play one on tv but i think they have a case here
And there are criminal penalties for making the recording and provisions for suppressing such a recording as evidence in a criminal trial as well as a civil action available for damages as a result of the recording. To my knowledge, thereās no basis for an injunction prohibiting future speech (i.e., a āprior restraintā) simply because the content may have been obtained in violation of a wiretapping statute.
Thatās not to say that the publication of the video might be defamatory or otherwise tortious AFTER itās published. But again, thatās not an appropriate basis for advance prohibition of its publication.
Another wrinkle is the fact that the stingers apparently signed a confidentiality agreement with no intention of honoring it. That itself could overcome the strong presumption against imposing prior restraints, although thereās no indication that the court actually considered that issue.
Iām waiting with abated breath for the āprecious pro-lifersā to post a morgue children who were born to abusive parentsā¦ and then explain why these children deserved their pain and suffering.
I agree LM57 that that is their mindset.
The law however will tell them what they can do with their mindset. And it is mind blowing:
In 2009, two twenty-something conservative activists, James OāKeefe and Hannah Giles, hoped to expose criminal malfeasance at ACORN by filming Vera without his consent, themselves violating section 632 of the California penal code in the process. Vera sued both parties over this and the wild misrepresentation of his activities in the edited version of the undercover video, posted online. (Giles settled with Vera and his attorneys this summer.) The episode is a quintessential example of a wholly original term, which we have just coined: journalistic malpractice.
Read more at Wonket Sexclusive: Totally Blameless Crime-Stopper James O'Keefe To Pay $100,000 To ACORN Criminal
Wow, it takes a powerful argument to win a prior-restraint injunction.
But I have to point out that both partiesā names are ā¦ interesting. The Center for Medical Progress obviously has exactly the opposite goal; and StemExpress sounds like an over-enthusiastic body-part delivery company.
Anti-abortion group, that pretty much cuts to the chase.