First Amendment? What First Amendment?
(AP) A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. 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.
The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.
The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos’ release.
What’s missing in any of the articles on this is that I can find is the “why”. There are a total of 12 videos, with 9 more set for release. They cannot release any until a court hearing on August 19th. The Center For Medical Progress responds
StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit†to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public. They are not succeeding—their initial petition was rejected by the court, and their second petition was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond. The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work and will contest all attempts from Planned Parenthood and their allies to silence our First Amendment rights and suppress investigative journalism.
Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Protesting Peaceably, these are all being violated by this court order.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
This is called prior restraint, and is what the Supreme Court said that the government could not do to The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. CMP should ignore the restraining order and release the videos anyway.
Failing that, the CMP should store the videos electronically, in a very insecure file, completely unprotected, and let it be known, covertly, of course, that that file could be hacked.
CMP released a 4th video starring Dr. Savita Ginde of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
Another fucking monster to be destroyed.
The original polio vaccine was discovered and developed using fetal tissue
The bible says a fetus is not human and that its value is. 1/4-1/2 oz silver
5-10$
Many states require both parties in a conversation be made aware that it is being recorded. For example, California is one such state. Since there is no 1st Amendment right to benefit from criminal acts, if the audiotapes were obtained illegally (that is, without the consent of the PP personnel), the court was correct to block further publication until the legality is established.
john continues to try and rock this lie without any citation or proof.
You have to love it when people who never studied the Bible try and portray themselves as experts of some type.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools….”
Many states require both parties in a conversation be made aware that it is being recorded. …….
Jeffery’s who post is without foundation.
First, the requirement is of consent is not present in most professional settings. Secondly, the requirement does not extend to whistleblower activities where a crime or civil action may be the basis of the recording.
Thirdly, the judge’s action is called “prior restraint” and is against black letter law.
The judge can punish after the publication of something if there is a breech of the law, but not before. The only case that could be made is of the tapes were publishing trade secrets or proprietary information. That is not the case here.
The recordings are of public interest and of a whistleblower nature.
The judge should be slapped down for this breech of the First Amendment.
Your opinion not withstanding, the courts will decide this issue, not blog commenters.
Glad to see that you agree that your opinion has no weight. So why did you bring it up, Jeffery?
Was it so you could display your ignorance again?
You tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about and got caught.
It’s funny to see the left who were just oh-so-supportive of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and Julian Assange for exposing secrets, real national security secrets, want to squash any effort to shine the light on Planned Parenthood’s work.
Abortionists are like cockroaches; they fester and feed in the dark, and scurry for cover when someone comes in the room and turns on the light. The real secret is to expose the people who staff abortion clinics, to treat them like the cockroaches of society that they are. Their names and addresses should be published, and they should be so publicly shamed and humiliated that they quit.
Decent people should never have anything to do with anyone who works at an abortuary: they shouldn’t be their friends, they shouldn’t talk to them, they shouldn’t do business with them, they should be treated with nothing but contempt and disdain.
Jeffrey wrote:
The CMP should find away to release the videos, regardless of what the court holds. Perhaps they simply need to be careless with the storage of the videos, to look the other way when they get stolen by someone who is not covered by the restraining order, or perhaps get them to a pro-life group based beyond American law jurisdiction. Once the tapes are released, they are out there forever.
gc,
You are so full of it. What has happened to you? You used to argue facts, but now you just whine and lash out.
I was merely bringing to the attention of the Teach that the issue was not as cut and dried as he had whined.
Your bringing up whistleblowers and “professional settings” is just more of your misleading bullschtick. You’re a proven and repeated liar.
By all means Matlock, please show us the law, otherwise you are not to be believed.
Dana,
I assume the LA Superior Court ruling only applies to CA, and possibly only the private conversations tapped there. Of course the CMP may show some courage and release the recordings anyway. The hazard to CMP would be jail time for officers and fines, and defending themselves against lawsuits.
Your plan would be a way to leak the information in a cowardly way, sort of like secretly taping private conversations, in the first place.
Actually Jeffery, it is cut and dry and that is the point. The judge is outside the law on this.
In other words, you have no response that makes any sense. Tell me Jeffery, when you walk in a store and they are recording you with audio and video, did you give your consent?
The CA law is also based upon “expectation of privacy.” In that the videos contain multiple people in the room, there is no expectation of privacy. (Once again, that is settled law.)
And yes, Jeffery, whistleblowers do not have to get permission to record. (Again, that is settled law. The laws vary slightly, but for the most part a “whistleblower is one who has a legitimate belief that their is a crime being committed or the release of information is in the public interest..
Talking to yourself again, Jeffery?
Oh, and it should be noted that CMP tried another injunction based on the the very things you are putting forth. The judge slapped that one down. This injunction is very narrow in its scope.
Of course, while you are out screaming how others are lying, you are backing Planned Parenthood which lied about the footage. That doesn’t surprise me as birds of a feather stick together.