Judge Blocks Release Of Anti-Abortion Videos As The Arbiter Of Journalism
from the prior-restraint dept
Abortion is one of those issues that infuriates me chiefly because it causes everyone to retreat to whichever camp they call home while throwing nuanced discussions out the window. In case I'm not being clear: that's stupid. Around these parts, however, we love a good moral stand, and we love a moral stand all the more when it forces us to stand up for a person or group we don't particularly like. That's what a moral stand is, after all. Take the Center for Medical Progress, for instance. These are the folks that propelled the abortion issue back into the public consiousness through sheer force of will and by publishing videos of their interactions with Planned Parenthood staff that was equal parts subterfuge and crass editing. Even as political candidates continue to slam Planned Parenthood as a result of these videos, state investigation after state investigation has found that the carefully edited work done by CMP portrayed a lie and that no criminal wrongdoing was uncovered. In fact, CMP has found itself indicted in Texas (!), rather than Planned Parenthood.
In other words, whatever your opinion on abortion might be, these people suck. Editing videos to make it seem like something that isn't happening is happening isn't virtuous. It's called lying, and it's a no-no.
And yet it's also at least questionable to attempt to silence these people. Echoing a judge in California who tried to suppress the original videos, a federal judge has now issued an injunction on CMP from releasing further videos it has produced of undercover interactions with abortion providers.
The ruling, by US district judge William Orrick, also details for the first time how members of the group, the Center for Medical Progress, pursued their targets and tailored their footage to maximize political damage. At the annual meeting, hosted by the National Abortion Federation, activists operated off a “mark list” and, in one case, waited to approach a particular doctor until after she had been drinking.Again, operating under the stipulation that the CMP is disingenuous at best and that its videos are the worst kind of biased journalism, it's difficult to see exactly on what grounds Judge Orrick has deemed himself the arbiter of journalism standards. And he better have some hefty ground on which to stand, because prior restraint of speech isn't the sort of thing entered into lightly in America. Garbage journalism is still journalism, after all, and if we're really going to consider stripping speech rights from those that selectively edit content in order to make their point, then we're going to have to cull a great deal of the journalism out there as well.
Before releasing its first videos of Planned Parenthood employees, the center circulated a press release with “messaging guidelines”, Orrick wrote. The goal, the release said, was to inspire “Congressional hearings/investigation and political consequences” for Planned Parenthood, and increase “political pressure”.
Orrick previously blocked the center from releasing any footage taken at the NAF meeting. On Friday, he rejected claims by the Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, that its activities were a form of investigative journalism protected by the first amendment.
Orrick focuses on how misleading the videos are and then claims them to not qualify as journalism. But, should these new videos indeed constitute defamation by being so egregiously edited, there are legal remedies for that. That's what the courts are for, after all. But to proactively attempt to restrain speech on the evaluation of a single judge?
For what it's worth, reports seem to suggest that the CMP has decided to ignore the judge's orders and has released at least some of the new videos anyway. That will likely lead to more legal action against the group. But it shouldn't. Speech is to be protected as a moral stance, even bad speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abortion, abortion rights, free speech, journalism, prior restraint, reporting, videos, william orrick
Companies: center for medical progress, planned parenthood
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm troubled by the possibilities from both the criminal and civil charges against the insidious, and Orwellian named, "Center for Medical Progress" will result in precedents that will impede legitimate journalism. And the kind of prior restraint ordered in this instance would seem to be problematic along those lines of concern.
On the other hand, there really is potential for un-recoverable harm from the fraudulent, libelous videos. Acorn is no more, thanks to a fraudulent right wing video campaign. So, I do think this is a delicate balancing act, and injunctions could be appropriate depending on the exact circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both parties are corrupt as fuck and no one even seems to give a damn about it. Mean while all the rest of us keep taking shots at the other side for their particular wrongs while ignoring our own.
Hypocrisy is the last game on Earth being played right now... and we all know where its heading... we are just ignoring it until it is too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Judge has gone overboard, though one can make arguments about the rise in violence tied to these videos getting out there.
We live in an age where a lie can run around the world 5 times before the truth can even begin to get up to speed and even when it gets up to speed there are those who refuse to accept it. Normally this isn't a problem until there is a bodycount (ohai antivaxxers).
The system has no way to deal with this new cycle, and trying to bolt old ideas into something to stem the flow is going to end poorly.
People have an absolute right to be lying bastards, the law offers remedies but nothing to deal with the toxic cloud left long after the bastard loses on court.
This is the sort of bad things that happen when we have to "do something!". The "journalists" are going to appeal and most likely sue for damages that they will win. Their rights to be lying bastards were abridged.
The concern is that more lies told will lead to more bad things and the thought we can just nip it in the bid by doing this and ignore everything being trampled "for the greater good".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's for the courts to decide after it's published. You don't ask for a judge's permission before speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A free speech restraint narrowly scoped to the release of videos of interactions with abortion providers, is "not by any stretch of the imagination" a "unilateral" revocation of 1st amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be selective over which people get to lie to the public.
Like it has been said the past... it is EVIL to prevent someone from publishing the news... you have to wait for it to be published to see what it contains and then let the concerned parties do battle in the courts, this is how the system works.
We we already know that people like you are stupid enough to believe everything being said because you lack the facilities to learn the truth for yourself, and you know that many others are just like you... having their information served up on a platter during the 6 o'clock news, wrong or right.
Supporting the concept of a Judge preventing people from exercising their rights pretty much means you are an enemy of 'The People'.
Hopefully YOU will one day have your rights completely stepped all over by those you seem to think should be able to step on others, because it suits your agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This does not meet any standards of journalistic integrity. It is a nicely packaged piece of propaganda, yes. It claims to be journalistic, but the simple fact is that it purposefully distorts context and, as the courts seem to see it (and many rational citizens seem to see it), it does constitute libel. And it does stand to do harm to someone's business, reputation, and safety. Until the litigation is settled, it is perfectly acceptable for this libel to be restrained until the matter is settled. If it is determined to be libel, then the injunction stays in place. If (and I highly doubt this will be the case), CMP is cleared - then it will be lifted.
This is not a blanket stripping of rights - it is a judge acting to limit exposure of potentially libelous material until the decision can be made and all litigation is finalized.
The injunction is not a blanket saying CMP can't say anything about planned parenthood or NAF. It simply says that they cannot publish videos that have been determined to be garnered through illicit means. This is within the rights of the court.
Anyone who believes this is a blanket stripping of 1st amendment rights - please, let me know. I've got a ton of beach property in Arizona to unload. I'm also in the market to sell a bridge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your version of journalistic integrity is different from someone else's.
This is not a blanket stripping of rights - it is a judge acting to limit exposure of potentially libelous material until the decision can be made and all litigation is finalized.
Let's make this clear, this is a guilty until proven innocent mentality.
This does not have to be a blanket strip of the 1st amendment to run afoul of it, just a preponderance of denying someone's rights is enough to violate the 1st. Remember the "Justice delayed is Justice denied" line? This works the same way.
Sitting there and saying well... we only trampled on 10% of your rights... so be happy, is pretty despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue is not whether there will be abuse, but whether it will be minimized and limited in scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/end rant
I'm actually very keen on careful, orderly, reasonable debate, though I confess I'm prone to asking awkward questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't a libel action. It's an invasion of privacy action, I think.
But if it WAS a libel action, how could they possibly determine that a video is libelous if it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED? You can't restrain something because it *might* be libelous. You have to prove it IS libelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I find their acts disgusting, but what the Judge is doing sets up a very serious problem.
The phrases & methods he employed create serious problems with existing law & rights. He tried to shoehorn a dislike for these people into the law that shouldn't be used that way.
I'm all for lying bastards getting what is due them, but not at the expense of the next person. The law protects those we like and those we dislike equally or it is no longer justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What phrases and methods are the problem here? If you can't point me to them, can you at least throw me a bone here and tell me what page of the document they're on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What we actually need is a flood of counter-speech to explain to people on the fence why these other people are wrong in the hope that they will lose support. Nobody wants to be Billy No-mates, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
that's my question. Isn't one response to criminal libel the right to suppress material that is a lie verging on criminality? the right to demand a take-down of the material?
So where does it stop? Should the court allow such material to continue to be distributed to contribute to future whack-a-mole court endeavours? Or should they at least say "this material is libelous and therefore people are simply forbidden to repeat it verbatim?
ou're not forbidding commentary, just the specific material, without proper context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He could have worked around that issue, there was more than enough to draw from, but by making the decision of if it was journalism or not...
Would like like to only see news stories approved by a Judge?
Looking at the makeup of the supreme court, I don't think I would get as much value from only the news Scalia approves as journalism.
It is just a piece of a highly charged case, but allowing 1 person to decide what is or is not journalism when they exercise their power to keep the material from review is troubling.
If this wasn't an abortion case but a case where there is a state law banning filming of abuses in the AgriIndustry and the Judge decides the video doesn't look good for his political allies and suppresses it... would you feel differently? Can a single Judge be trusted with the power to decide what is or is not journalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to lie --> Right to consequences
That is the tradeoff: Demonstrably defamatory and libelous speech may be made..but it faces swift and certain consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Real Threat
There is a direct correlation between these videos and an increase in anti-choice/pro-life violence against abortion providers. Therefore, there is an issue of public safety involved - which, if you are aware of speech law, is not protected speech. You cannot stand up in a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!" and claim free speech, because the public danger of that speech outweighs your freedom.
There is a very real threat related to these videos. The judge made the right decision to block these videos on a preliminary basis to protect the safety and rights of others.
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very Real Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very Real Threat
So yes, there are some very real personal safety issues here: anti-abortion assholes are religious fanatics, terrorists, and sociopathic zealots who are willing to kill in order to achieve their goals.
I think a substantial case can be made the CMP is deliberately inciting violence and should be silenced. And that case is bolstered in part by the CMP's own conduct: it has committed criminal acts and it has refused to distance itself from other criminal acts committed as a direct result of CMP propaganda. This is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very Real Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very Real Threat
No. The bar is much, much higher than you think it is for incitement. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
"...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Any lawless action as a result of the videos was not "imminent".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very Real Threat
OK, so you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. (Unless there's really a fire, or you're on stage and that's your line, or there's actually some complicated situation that requires immediate evacuation but it's quicker to yell "fire" than explain the situation, or...) But this isn't like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's more akin to talking in a loud voice about an alleged arson that's a few miles away. There's no panic here. There's no direct incitement to violence. The actions of outraged individuals are not the responsibility of those releasing the videos, any more than the media was responsible for the Rodney King riots by announcing the verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very Real Threat
If I go on TV and call Muhammad a "murderous pedophile who created a death cult", it's highly likely some of his adherents will decide to go on a killing spree to prove how wrong I am, but even so, a judge can't order me not to say it.
Being worried that someone might say something that makes other people angry is not a cause to suppress that person's free speech rights as protected by the first amendment. Unless the group in question is making threats and/or telling listeners to attack pro-choice establishments, their speech is protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think that's what CMP videos where trying to prove. They were trying to show that Planned Parenthood was taking pieces of aborted fetuses and selling them to companies for monetary compensation. It turns out that's exactly what they were, and presumably are doing.
It wasn't CMP who said they were breaking the law. They were just saying it's a hideous and immoral act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, two things. First, it isn't true that CMP didn't claim PP was breaking the law. In fact, they were in court in Texas arguing that very thing: that this all amounted to the sale of body parts and constituted a violation of the law. Turns out they were indicted for the solicitation of body parts themselves instead, as they attempted to get PP to sell to them (which they didn't, because they only transact in fetal tissue with well-regulated groups, as the law allows). What the law allows is for PP to collect a fee for the tissue to cover processing and shipping. Processing of tissue is quite expensive, because it needs to be handled as biohazard material, it is typically isolated for specific cells, etc.
Second, I'm not certain where exactly the immorality in this transaction is? What PP does is take aborted fetuses and, with the permission of the abortion patient, give them to research groups for the afore mentioned fee. Were they to NOT do this, then the tissue would go to no use and be discarded instead. If we assume that the abortion is going to happen because it is legal, WHY IS DISCARDING THE TISSUE A PREFERENTIAL OUTCOME COMPARED WITH CONDUCTING RESEARCH USING IT?
If your point is the abortion never should have been allowed in the first place, that's a valid stance to take. But, with abortion currently being legal, I'm struggling to see exactly where the immorality is in getting the tissue in the hands of researchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the same reason that we don't allow death row inmates to donate organs upon execution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither of those reasons apply to tissues from abortions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice description of a human baby. First, you have to dehumanize them, then you can kill them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/20_years_in_prison_for_miscarrying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mag azine-24532694
The words "omelette" and "eggs" apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes; it's even one of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, by some people's logic, it must violate the separation of church and state, and all murder laws are unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We could legalize all sorts of things by under the guise that people will do it anyway. Not a very good argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Irrespective of abortion's legality, what, if any, is the immorality of getting foetal tissue into the hands of researcher's? This is a very complex question that deals with everything from the purposes of the research to the benefits to society to the attitudes of people involved to what is going on.
It is quite separate to the topic of abortion itself. We have those who oppose abortion for many reasons. We have those who support abortion for many reasons. We have political games played on both sides, which effectively mean demonizing their opponents. We have terms like pro-choice and anti-abortion or pro-life and pro-abortion.
The emotive language used by yourself and others is solely there to cause demonization on both sides.
The fact is, we rarely look at the social consequences of both sides. We rarely look at the overall consequences of the arguments to the people who make up society. For those who oppose abortion, there will situations where it may be the only viable solution. For those who support abortion, it may well have very limited application.
But as long as the politics and emotional stagecraft are being used, we have no hope of ever seeing the real needs, limitations, benefits and problems of abortion and any processes and techniques that may depend on it.
There are many technologies that are coming into existence today that face the same questions and we, as a society, do not ask the intelligent and moral questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People think the First Amendment allows the right to be malicious assholes because the Government cannto stop you from saying it.
That isn't quite what has gone on in this case; the CMP committed actual crimes in pursuing this 'journalistic' piece. A piece of journalism that has been directly linked to shootings at Planned Parenthood clinics, and a concerted attack on one of the largest non-corporate medical service providers in the United States under Title IX.
I think blindly publishing the raw videos is mind-numbingly stupid, but I wouldn't put it past these 'journalists' to do that just to spite the Judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planned Parenthood basically falls under the category of a famous person under the law, who has a higher burden of proof to sue someone for slander.
And Planned Parenthood has met it's burden with the overwhelming evidence that the videos are doctored and complete lies made just to slander their reputation.
Even famous people/groups have the right to sue the news media for slander, and get a judge to order them to stop slandering them with blatant lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not a *preliminary* injunction. Injunctions in speech cases are normally granted only when a final ruling has been made on the merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political Ads
Orrick focuses on how misleading the videos are and then claims them to not qualify as journalism.
Maybe he is just trying to lay the groundwork to save us all from political ads for the next 9 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You say on the one hand, "prior restraint is improper, the remedy is that the people being libeled can go to court after the fact". You say on the other hand, "it should be okay not to have to use the courts (of appeals) as a remedy (for a possibly unconstitutional prior restraint)".
Why should having to use the courts be okay in the first instance, and not in the second? Because you're engaged in a little civil disobedience protest? Where is that safeguarded by law?
And yeah, disobeying a (possibly illegal) prior restraint order has gotten other people charged with contempt before.
Civil disobedience automatically has legal consequences. If you aren't prepared to accept the latter, don't do the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You can always go to court and sue for libel" has exactly the same truth in its realm, as "you can always hire a boat to take you to Europe when you are on the no fly list" does in its.
True in theory, false in practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all missed something here
If I were the judge, this would have been my basis for denying them the right to release more video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all missed something here
And how do you leap from "no charges were filed against PP based on this evidence" to "therefore, the evidence must have been falsified"? Isn't it more likely that the evidence was merely insufficient?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all missed something here
Government agencies currently occupied by pro-murder ilk found no evidence?... The hell you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You all missed something here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You all missed something here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You all missed something here
"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any"
Wow. Guess you're right. It's all leftist, baby-killing liberals who are clearing PP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You all missed something here
Planned Parenthood... cleared by a nut-job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You all missed something here
For that matter, just about every investigation into planned parenthood was kicked off by - guess who? A conservative with 'pro-life' views. I put that in quotes, because ironically several of these 'pro-life' ilk are actually pro-war, pro death penalty, and anti-welfare.
So yeah. Take your own advice and review and redo. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You all missed something here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism
In this case, you seem to be repeating soundbites of subterfuge echo'd not by Planned Parenthood who ended the practices upon widespread discovery but by Politicians and Special Interest defending their funding agenda.
Personally, I have no problem with honest editing to highlight the subject matter in a bigger story. But NBC edited content to falsely influence opinion and perception. Accordingly, PPs response was to end the practice indicating and highlighting the moral challenges with those practices - even within their own organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it should lead to more legal action against the group. There are procedures for appeal, even emergency appeal, which CMP knows about because one they filed one with the supreme when a court ordered them to release the names of the people who they shared information with that was covered by a NDA. Appeal would be the correct process if they feel this is inappropriate prior restraint of their first amendment rights.
If you are going to ignore a court order than you had better be prepared to deal with a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court.
I think that the center of this case is the voluntarily signed NDA. Journalists are bound by an NDA once it is signed. It is why many journalists may decline to sign an NDA and then try to source the information they seek elsewhere. California appears to be a state that takes an NDA seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here Here!
As the killings in Colorado were a direct result of his felony, it's only fitting.
The terrorist responsible for Colorado very directly cited the results of this felony.
So, fingers crossed they are convicted, and fingers crossed that that connection is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arbiter of journalism
"Again, operating under the stipulation that the CMP is disingenuous at best and that its videos are the worst kind of biased journalism, it's difficult to see exactly on what grounds Judge Orrick has deemed himself the arbiter of journalism standards."
Judge Orrick's injunction did not purport to make any determinations of journalism standards. He rested on only TWO of the plaintiff's many claims -- that the defendants gained access to the place where they made recordings by promising to keep confidential information obtained there, and that defendant violated the California penal code by making recordings of conversations without revealing that they were doing so and obtaining consent. Now, those decisions might be right and might be wrong (I haven't studied the records or the briefs to make a judgment about that), but it seems to me that to make a rhetorical point about the opinion you misrepresent the opinion.
Judge Orrick does address the defendants' contention that they were entitled to disregard both the confidentiality agreement that they signed and the penal code because they found evidence of illegal conduct, and that there is thus a public policy concern that overrides the contract and the California statute. Judge Orrick rejects that claim as a matter of evidence -- that nothing in their recordings shows criminality -- and in any event that nothing in his injunction forbids disclosures to law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbiter of journalism
Well, if there WAS evidence of illegal conduct and law enforcement ignored it, it would still be in the public interest to reveal that.
I'm fairly biased against ND's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arbiter of journalism
When you have a difference of opinion with law enforcement, then you lose.
If law enforcement tells you to jump, then you jump. If they tell you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If law enforcement tells you to say something, then talk. If law enforcement tells you to believe something, then believe it.
Hell, if law enforcement tells you to vote a certain way… every politician knows that the police unions swing a big club.
Life in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Arbiter of journalism
When you have a difference of opinion with law enforcement, then you lose.
If law enforcement tells you to jump, then you jump. If they tell you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If law enforcement tells you to say something, then talk. If law enforcement tells you to believe something, then believe it."
This is the Anti-thesis of "law enforcement". There is no difference of opinion when it comes to law, there is just the law. And any judicial or officers that abuse the system to punish adversaries or gain favors should be met with incredible resistance by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbiter of journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
"Injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the court in which the court, upon deciding that the plaintiff's rights are being violated, balances the irreparablility of injuries and inadequacy of damages if an injunction were not granted against the damages that granting an injunction would cause."
Sounds like the absolute right temporary remedy to me. After that, PP should sue CMP out of existence and the little douche who cooked up this whole scheme should go to prison.
To everyone else: What you think about abortion and fetal tissue is really YOUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEF. If you don't like it, call your local, state, and federal representatives and try to get the law molded after your particular version of reality. I'll do the same with the interest in keeping church and state (or state and knee-jerk reactionary behavior) separated by as big of a margin as I can muster.
My personal belief is that everyone who tries to force their highly personal belief upon someone they don't know, and until learning about such a "sin" couldn't care about and wouldn't give two pennies for, should micturate vertically upon a bundle of twisted hemp.
Also, screw Tim for writing such a stupidly biased article. Not every single instance of prior restraint of the first amendment is wrong on its face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
My personal belief is indeed my personal belief. I don't see the point of your tautology. If your point is that we therefore shouldn't have laws regarding it, then your point is stupid, because everyone has personal beliefs regarding everything.
Won't do much good, since the courts decided to invent a right to abortion and struck down laws prohibiting it.
"In other words, whatever your opinion on abortion might be, these people suck." - OK, he's biased. But not in the direction of supporting this group. If you're accusing him of being biased in favor of free speech, I doubt he'd take that as an insult.
Maybe not EVERY case. But there's a heavy presumption against prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
This judge here decided the defendants lied when they made all their promises. When the defendants are liars, then the judge'll show 'em the truth: The courts can and will shut people up when they have it coming. — In the interests of justice and fair play.
Turn and turn about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
Holy cr@p on a cracker. Are you kidding me? Seriously? Here's a better analogy for these videos. Picture a 'documentary' about a famous post WWII civil rights activist - especially a Jewish one. Now, picture taking the interview and cutting portions to put them out of order and out of context so that this Jewish Civil Rights activist SEEMS to be supporting Hitler's genocide.
THAT is basically what CMP did. Your analogy is WAY off base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
They have links to the edited and full length videos along with transcripts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
You have added ltierally nothing to the conversation. But, to rebut your points - that is the point of these two cases; Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress and Daleiden and National Abortion Federation v. Centre for Medical Progress and Daleiden. That's the whole reason why this post exists - the CMP published an arguably criminally negligent set of 'journalistic' pieces that have, directly or otherwise, caused people to act as terrorists, leading to injury and loss of life.
You want to know something that's darkly hilarious about this whole situation? Daleiden took a leaf out of the infamous Andrew Breitbart's book - he had also used malicious editing to shut down the opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
In regards to the editing, how? It is possible for people to show highly edited videos taking statements out of context from the bigger picture, especially when the ENTIRE length of the video is up for the world to see and no one defending PP to my knowledge has ever attempted to or made a video showing how PP workers were taken out of context, why? If the videos are so unashamedly and maliciously edited, where is the video pointing it out? The only people being shut down are CMP, less than half of the population has even seen the videos according to surveys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
It doesn't exist because Planned Parenthood, and their militant supporters are completely and utterly full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this is what Techdirt has to say.
It is the solemn responsibility of the state to do its utmost to prevent and suppress criminally negligent terror-journalism.
Make no mistake: prevention first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waaaaaaa!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waaaaaaa!
We're not all the same, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, if there is ANY merit to these claims - then why did EVERY investigation, EVEN THE ONES SPONSORED AND RUN BY PRO-LIFE NUT JOBS, clear planned parenthood?
Maybe because there is less evidence than you're claiming? Nope - couldn't be, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just those who at the same time are pro-war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech vs Criminal Speech
But what about criminal speech? From what I understand, CMP has been indicted in Texas as their speech was criminally actionable. If that's the case, then I have no issue with any further speech being constrained until that case is resolved. If their cleared, then they can go ahead and continue to speak out. If they're found guilty... they may have larger issues than attempts at further speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech vs Criminal Speech
Their lawyer will doing all the talking, and won't say anything that'll piss off the judge if that lawyer knows what's good for him and his bar license.
Know your rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech vs Criminal Speech
No, no phone calls for you! Your lawyer will talk on the telephone for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Propaganda, Lie's and slander can be restrained by the courts.
The creators of the video cross the line of free speech by having a stated goal of wishing to create a panic that makes people act out of fear. Thus the yelling fire in a crowded theater argument is a very valid example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech does not an absolute. There are limits, both in law and in practice. This is one of those areas where limiting the speech pending the outcome of lawsuits and legal action is perhaps the best thing.
Their lies and misrepresentations are powerful and they are getting repeated by anti-abortionists as gospel. There is not amount of legal action that will ever undo this monstrosity of a video. One thing for sure, it's not journalism, and you are really not very bright if you support their right to continue to push this stuff on the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
… equity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the OP "Timothy Geigner" even read the first page or two of the Judges ruling... material he even linked to in creating this post???
The Judge clearly states that this isn't a free speech ruling. It's a ruling on releasing confidential information.... that CMP willingly signed agreed to and is bound to the terms of.
Boom drop the Microphone.... 95 posts arguing back and forth and few including the OP could be bothered by reading the judges ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if CMP signed the NDA solely out of necessity —with intent to deceive— the beneficiaries of that agreement could have no practical way to know that fact. Therefore, CMP's outward manifestation of agreement is tantamount to actual agreement.
They consented. In fact. And in equity.
Equity looks to the intent and not to the form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did YOU read the ruling? Because the following statement suggests you didn't...
That's blatantly false. On page 38 the judge said "I also recognize that this case impinges on defendants’ rights to speech and the public’s equally important interest in hearing that speech." So, no, the judge clearly recognizes that it IS a free speech case. He merely says that free speech isn't important enough to win here and/or that the defendants waived it.
If the contract impacts speech then it's both. Maybe one wins and one loses, but both are involved and need to be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In equity, disregarding forms for substance, defendants knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, the judge says nothing of the sort, and even acknowledges that this has implications for CMP's right to speech. 2nd, we discussed the validity of holding CMP to the confidentiality agreement they signed elsewhere, and it still doesn't change my opinion that this constitutes prior restraint, when the proper outcome would be CMP releasing the videos and then getting their asses handed to them for defamation and/or breach of confidentiality, should that be proven.
"Boom drop the Microphone.... 95 posts arguing back and forth and few including the OP could be bothered by reading the judges ruling."
It appears YOU didn't read it, actually, since you've completely mis-characterized what the judge said and then didn't even bother to address my central point: that prior restraint of journalism, even bad journalism, isn't a preferable outcome compared with allowing CMP to release the videos and then deal w/the consequences after words.
So pick your microphone back up and hit yourself over the head with it until you can come up with a cogent thought....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quoting the judge "On the other side of the equation is defendants’ claim of irreparable injury. They focus on their First Amendment right to disseminate the information fraudulently obtained at the NAF Meetings, and the injury to the public of being deprived of the NAF recordings. But freedom of speech is not absolute, especially where there has been a voluntary agreement to keep information confidential. While the disclosure of evidence of criminal activity or evidence of imminent harm to public health and safety could outweigh enforcement of NAF’s confidentiality agreements (as discussed above), there is no such evidence in defendants’ recordings."
The judge directly addresses the OP's opinion of "bad Journalism" by stating (below) that well... to summarize this wasn't journalism but a blatant propaganda attempt with a clearly stated goal of manipulating the video's viewers. Having no basis in journalism.
To further quote the judge on Page 39 ...."NAF members also have the right to associate in privacy and safety to discuss their profession at the NAF Meetings, and need that privacy and safety in order to safely practice their profession.On the record before me, NAF has demonstrated the release of the NAF materials will irreparably impinge on those rights. The context of how defendants came into possession of the NAF materials cannot be ignored and directly supports preliminarily preventing the disclosure of these materials. Defendants engaged in repeated instances of fraud, including the manufacture of fake documents, the creation and registration with the state of California of a fake company, and repeated false statements to a numerous NAF representatives and NAF members in order to infiltrate NAF and implement their Human Capital Project. The products of that Project – achieved in large part from the infiltration – thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions (at least with respect to the NAF materials) of criminal misconduct. Defendants did not – as Daleiden repeatedly asserts – use widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. Defendants provide no evidence to support that assertion and no cases on point."
Again this is not a case of "bad Journalism" or "freedom of speech" as the judge's own words clearly state. Which is backed up in his ruling.
I somehow find it bothersome that your responding under a different name than your TD article postings. It makes it very confusing and doesn't allow the readers to decipher easily whom they're addressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bottom line, who's gonna say he's wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's absolutely right, this is about a breach of right to privacy and not the right to speech - the judge squarely dismissed that argument. I don't know how you don't see that. Oh wait, yes I do, it's because you read the Grauniad and not the ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]