And then that so many were ready to run with their previous assumptions after the charge against Planned Parenthood was made public, that the truth didn’t matter, didn’t warrant further exploration. And that these so free with their condemnation were those elected to office or running for it, that doesn’t give anyone pause? That these were Republicans uninterested in the facts doesn’t that scare anyone? Orwell and Wiesel have it right.
13 Likes
When free speech is implicated, the burden on the government is very high: to show that it has a compelling interest in suppressing the speech. Maintaining the integrity of the ID system provides a rational but not a compelling government interest to prohibit the use of false IDs in cases like this. Thus, the main issue as I see it is whether there is protected First Amendment activity occurring in the first place.
I see two forms of speech here. First, the use of a fraudulent identity to conduct the undercover investigation is a form of speech insofar as the person is proactively misrepresenting themsleves. There was a SCOTUS case decided a couple of years ago called Alvarez where SCOTUS held that the government can’t criminalize people for lying about their wartime decorations. I think the type of fraudulent identity in this case should fall under this Alvarez holding, especially because the ultimate goal of the PP investigation was to conduct an investigation for political advocacy purposes.
A second form of speech, arguably, is that the investigation itself was a predicate to talk about Planned Parenthood’s current practice of selling fetuses. In other words, it is a form of proto-speech which is necessary for the speech itself, and therefore it should be protected under the First Amendment.
Source: Am a liberal public interest attorney who has worked on First Amendment litigation challenging government criminalization of undercover investigation techniques.
There are defamation laws that cover that (which by the way are highly regulated by the First Amendment, further underscoring that this is fundamentally a First Amendment issue). We don’t need to criminalize the investigation itself though, because such an investigation could/did produce actual factual content. Focus on the defamation not the investigative techniques that could be used by journalists and whistleblowers which nine times out of ten will uncover unsavory government or corporate conduct that liberals find offensive.
Ha! I was thinking pound cake at first, as in, what kind of dessert Daleiden will be seen as by his soon-to-be fellow inmates.
Pretty sure it was pound cake, but just think, if TPM gets investigated for being involved in uranium tracking…they’ll be super super famous like a real news site!
1 Like
But isn’t that part of why the Grand Jury decided to indict the “investigative journalists,” the actual content was not factual – it was very heavily edited to create falsehood. If these two had actually uncovered any wrongdoing by PP, wouldn’t the GJ have not gone this route (indicting the “investigators”).
6 Likes
Then Planned Parenthood should sue for defamation. Undercover investigations are protected under the First Amendment. I can’t believe a website full of progressives is seriously arguing the opposite. I think the pro-life movement is full of idiots, but just because we would love to see these suckers go down doesn’t mean we should support criminalization of deception used in undercover investigations utilized for political advocacy purposes.
The problem with your argument is:
A) PP doesn’t sell fetuses. The republican DA in Texas spent 5 months investigating that very question and clearly exonerated them
B) CMP didn’t produce anything remotely resembling journalism. They had an agenda, and when their keystone cop undercover attempt didn’t produce the results they wanted, CMP doctored the video and disseminated total bullshit to the public.
I’m sure your poor attempts at analysis is highly thought of at Breitbart. Stick with the kiddie commenters over there.
10 Likes
They did.
7 Likes
“investigation” – tetrisd
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
12 Likes
I tend to agree with tetrisd. Ask yourself, if the Texas was prosecuting the Southern Poverty Law Center for using a fake ID to infiltrate and report on a Klan rally, would you be ok with that?
1 Like
I’m not sure any investigation by SPLC has ever been conducted in such a slanted manner as these two did with their “investigation” of PP – these two had a set agenda (and that was just what their investigations were to discover) and it was obviously clear to the Grand Jury. That said, I am no expert here – so I must rely heavily on the Grand Jury’s decision(s). Had the GJ announced their finding(s) of no wrong-doing by PP and left it at that, I would have been satisfied.
Additionally, these two did not do enough investigation to cover their own butts – by clearly making an offer to purchase products (body parts) that are regulated up the ass, they should have known enough how to phrase an interest in such products – not a clear actual offer.
6 Likes
Why don’t you try to meet some progressives? You may find that your friends are wrong about us.
6 Likes
Yes. It is an illegal act. It isn’t an imposition on free speech to prosecute an illegal act. It may be a mitigating circumstance, but not an get out of jail free card.
3 Likes
Whether or not “I” would be okay with using a fraudulent government document for any purpose is not the issue. Its simply against the law. It’s punishable by up to 20 years in prison, or so I’ve heard somewhere, recently.
1 Like
§ 48.02. PROHIBITION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF HUMAN ORGANS.
(a) "Human organ" means the human kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, eye, bone, skin, fetal tissue, or any other human organ or tissue, but does not include hair or blood, blood components (including plasma), blood derivatives, or blood reagents.
(b) A person commits an offense if he or she knowingly or intentionally offers to buy, offers to sell, acquires, receives, sells, or otherwise transfers any human organ for valuable consideration.
(c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the valuable consideration is: (1) a fee paid to a physician or to other medical personnel for services rendered in the usual course of medical practice or a fee paid for hospital or other clinical services; (2) reimbursement of legal or medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the ultimate receiver of the organ; or
(3) reimbursement of expenses of travel, housing, and lost wages incurred by the donor of a human organ in connection with the donation of the organ.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
I can’t get bolding to work in the quote, so here’s the excerpt of the gist:
A person commits an offense if he or she knowingly or intentionally offers to buy … any human organ for valuable consideration.
The elided portion is all in the disjunctive; these are all the required elements right here.
3 Likes
It’s also not an offer to buy (and certainly not an offer to buy for valuable consideration); it’s just a question. It wouldn’t be enforceable in contract (even if it would be a legal transaction), and wouldn’t support a criminal prosecution.
Let’s not forget the people who died in Colorado Springs egged on by the completely fraudulent actions of these criminals. They should be additionally charged with negligent homicide. Throw them in jail and throw away the key!!
5 Likes
So if they need to commit murder to prove their bona fides, that would be protected under the first amendment? No? Well, Bubba, neither is creating a phony government document. It, too, is a felony, and it doesn’t matter how pure your intentions for its use. You have to figure out a way to get the job done without it, or risk a felony conviction.
You got any cases that say what you claim, as broadly as you claim it? Thought not.
6 Likes
You’d have to prove they should have known there was a substantial probability of that result from their specific actions, that an ordinary person would exercise due care to prevent it, and that they failed to do so. That’s reaching a wee tad. And that would just be to prove up civil negligence. Criminal negligence lies between that and recklessness, where they did know about such a substantial probability of the result. To me, the probability was reasonably remote. It took a nutcase to interpret it in a way that led to the result.
1 Like