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.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Voice of Reason.
Re: Re: Re:
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.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Voice of Reason.
Submit a story now.