Two Activists Who Secretly Recorded Planned Parenthood Face 15 Felony Charges (npr.org) 470
mi writes: California prosecutors on Tuesday charged two activists who made undercover videos of themselves interacting with officials of a taxpayer-supported organization with 15 felonies, saying they invaded privacy by filming without consent. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat who took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations." Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right? The "taxpayer-supported organization" is Planned Parenthood, and the charges were pressed against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Daleiden has called the charges "bogus," claiming that Planned Parenthood "has violated the law by selling fetal tissue -- an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim," reports NPR. "Daleiden claimed the video showed evidence that Planned Parenthood was selling that tissue, which would be illegal. Planned Parenthood said the footage was misleadingly edited and that the organization donates tissue following legal guidelines and with permitted reimbursements for expenses, which investigations have corroborated."
They are not government employees (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand how anyone can conflate someone who works at Planned Parenthood with a police officer. They are not employees of the Government or any form of government body.
Just because they receive some government funding doesn't mean their status changes. They aren't acting on government orders and should the government withdraw their funding they would attempt to source it elsewhere.
Anyone who is trying to argue that these people are government officials has an agenda they are pushing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as I hope we can kill all government funding for planned parenthood, the right to not be subject to this kind of spying by activists is too important to give up. I see people on the right trying to support this activity but they should beware. When you take these protections away we all lose. Personally I think we've given up too much of our freedoms now. Let's not give any more away.
Re:They are not government employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think we've given up too much of our freedoms now.
What about my freedom to use the medical practitioner of my choice? What about my freedom to partake in the medical procedures of my (and my Doctor's) choice? Why do you get to decide what "freedoms" I get to exercise?
Why is it that the people who most loudly shout about defending "freedom", are the ones that want to control who I marry, which bathroom I use, and which god I pray to?
Re:They are not government employees (Score:5, Informative)
You may have missed the "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence" bit of the story. And most of the states were conservative states with investigators who really, really wanted to find evidence. Either every single Planned Parenthood clinic is staffed entirely by loyal criminal geniuses who make Lex Luthor seem an idiot, or they did nothing illegal or wrong. A few clinics donated fetal tissue to research, and received a pittance for it for their costs. And likely less than their cost, because if it were even one penny more than their cost, then at least one of those states would have announced it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because mutilating babies so they can't get pleasure out of masturbation is a good thing according to conservatives.
Unfortunately they don't really manage to think a hint further, to the point where the friction from fucking someone in the ass is higher and hence more pleasurable when your dick ain't that sensitive anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
citation
That is truly, and undeniably, without a doubt, a citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it serves their agenda. Duh.
So 60 Minutes... (Score:2, Insightful)
can no longer record undercover in CA ?
Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score:5, Informative)
CA is a two-party consent state so it has never been legal in CA to record surreptitiously where the other party expects the conversation to be private.
The exceptions may be federal employees on duty at the time of recording under federal jurisdiction but this doesn't apply here, PP is a private organization and the employees are private entities.
Re: (Score:2)
IF that is true, they are going to walk free....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yea, that's right...er... Leftist's view.. No, I didn't get the memo, I'm not on the proper distribution list.
Which is why I'm happy with the SCOTUS pick we got from Trump... Imagine, a judge that thinks he's bound to rule based on what the law says and not on how he feels about it... Judges like him will end this kind of political prosecution....
Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score:4, Insightful)
People exposing illegal actions by PP/Democrats are criminal terrorists, not reporters/journalists.
And in this case, people who lie about exposing illegal actions are also criminals, though nobody but you seems to be calling them terrorists. Why do you think they are terrorists? That's kinda creepy.
Reporters and journalists get quotes then assemble them into a story. Zealots edit the quotes so that they seem to mean something very different than what they say. Sadly, there are more zealots that there should be in this world.
Criminals are reporters or zealots or anyone else who gets their quotes illegally. Some are prosecuted, some are not. The ones who put out true stories are usually not prosecuted, though there are exceptions. Really, the ones who put out false stories are also rarely prosecuted, but some judges get grumpy when people try to frame innocent folk.
These guys are zealots and criminals. I don't know if they'll be convicted; fake IDs and illegal recording are fairly minor and you know they will have very well funded defenses.
Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe people who are actually murdering innocents [wikipedia.org] are terrorists?
Re: (Score:3)
but two-party consent is not the law the prosecution should be hanging their hat on
. . . It's a well-established law on the books that was violated.
two-party consent is bullshit
Well, YES. But that's just... like... our opinion man.
If I'm a party to a conversation I should have the right to record it regardless of the consent -- or indeed, knowledge -- of any other party involved!
Rather than "at a party", I believe the term "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is more appropriate.
BUT. What the law IS versus what the law SHOULD be are two different things.
Listen, one of the reasons we even HAVE states is to test out different rulesets and find out what works, what doesn't, and for who. California and Chicago are trying out the whole "you can lie your ass off while
Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that these folks recorded private citizens and employees of a non-profit, and not "the government", right? People seem really confused by this point, and I have no idea why.
Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score:5, Insightful)
As with anything, you break the law and it's up to the DA to decide if you are prosecuted, not everyone that commits a crime gets prosecuted. In this case the people involved did classic one party recordings that are illegal in California. How the public perceives that illegal action will likely determine if you are prosecuted or not. Considering the published recordings were doctored to make it look like people said things they didn't say that action probably increased the likelihood of them being prosecuted, in addition no finding of wrong doing on the part of PP obviously increased the likelihood because you lose the argument of public good.
These guys weren't journalists, they were political operatives lying to people so they could illegally recording conversations without the consent of the party in a 2-party state and then doctored the recordings to make them say things they didn't. That will get you prosecuted in almost every state that's a 2 party state. In addition the use of fake drivers licenses and lying about their names and stuff puts them up for false ID charge and a fraud prosecution.
I would be surprised if they didn't prosecute them given the conduct involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to point out that not everyone charged is convicted either.. But I'd like to also ask the following:
What is a journalist? If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news. Sure seems like a good basis for the "We are journalists" claim to come.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news.
When you edit the recordings, changing the order of questions and answers so that it sounds like someone is breaking the law when they are not, then you are not a journalist.
In the past, a few (fortunately very few) journalists have completely skewed undercover operations like this. And whenever those people are caught, they usually lose their jobs and are never hired or respected again, and their employer takes a huge credibility hit, because they WERE NOT ACTING AS JOURNALISTS. This encourages other jou
Re: (Score:2)
Grand juries and prosecutors usually have wide discretion for bringing charges too. Given that the fraudsters intentionally engaged in fraud with the recordings that they made it's not exactly the same circumstances as recording a farmer willfully kicking his way through the barn packed to the walls with chickens unprompted.
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing charges? Sure.. Making them stick? That will take a judge and jury... Not all charges end up in convictions. Somehow I get the impression these guys will not get convicted, though it will cost them a lot of money to defend themselves, money that will likely be donated..
In the mean time, they will drag this through the press, giving PP a repeated black eye.... I'm guessing they will say "Mission Accomplished!" when this is all done.
Apples v. Oranges? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?
The two links in this question refer to filming police officers, who are employed by their jurisdiction to enforce laws. Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3), a nonprofit corporation, so aren't their officials by definition not public employees? What is similar in this case, other than the recording of others, that makes it comparable to filming of public employees performing public duties?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you even know what a 501(c)(3) corporation is? As for being public employees, I'll give you a hint: it's related to the word "corporation".
But let's look at another example. What about people who get jobs in abattoirs in order to record the genuine mistreatment of animals? Should they be prosecuted? How is this different?
Hard cases make bad laws.
Filming in PUBLIC vs PRIVATE (Score:2)
There is a distinction between your privacy rights in public and private. Just like secretly recording telephone conversations is prohibited. The first amendment does not give me the right to come into your home, invited, and start secretly filming. If these videos had been recorded in public settings, I doubt the legality would be in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do be careful... This varies by State.
In this case, the state of CA doesn't allow recordings (audio or video) without all parties knowing they are being recorded with very few exceptions.
My head asplode! (Score:3)
So, exactly who are they quoting here? Daleiden claiming there's no evidence to support his own claims? WTF. Can somebody find an editor who isn't BeauHD?
Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Undercover videos are apparently fine when they record evidence of animal abuse.
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations [mercyforanimals.org]
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/29/california-is-fine-with-undercover-sting-videos-that-expose-animal-cruelty/ [thefederalist.com]
But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.
I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law. If Mercy for Animals isn't charged for surreptitious recording, then this verdict should be overturned.
P.S. The NPR article makes the claim that the video was misleadingly edited. If so, then sue those guys for slander; lying by misleading editing is still lying. Don't selectively enforce a recording law because you are actually upset about something else.
P.P.S. "...an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim." If we are going to hammer people with 15 felony charges for collecting evidence, I'm not surprised there's no evidence. Also, I'm always suspicious of claims like that... "don't evaluate their video evidence on its own merits, discount it because nobody else has similar evidence from other locations" makes no sense. Again, if the video really was misleadingly edited in a deceptive way, nail them for that.
Re:Double confused (Score:2, Informative)
Are you kidding me?
1. The animal abuse videos are usually not recorded in california where the state wiretapping laws apply.
2. The animal abuse videos are mostly visual images of people stomping on animal's heads and kicking them in the throat. They are not audio recordings of conversations.
3. Animals don't have conversations.
4. Wiretapping laws do not apply to animals.
5. States have tried to make recording undercover abuse videos illegal. They failed [latimes.com].
PS-- your PS doesn't make sense for the above reas
Re:Double confused (Score:4, Insightful)
If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection. If it's a protection against self-incrimination, I don't think I can object to it.
If 60 Minutes has made undercover videos in California that included audio recordings, and they were never prosecuted for it, then I have an objection again.
As for the rest of your comments, you seem a bit confused. The animals are not accused of anything; the secret videos were of humans doing things to animals, and those secret videos are apparently perfectly legal.
P.S. "Flamebait"? Seriously? Moderators, if you must mod me down just because you don't like what I wrote, the traditional one to use is "Overrated". I may be overrated but I'm neither trolling nor flamebaiting.
I really do think the law should be easy to understand and applied even-handedly. Justice should be blind, and people I hate should be treated the same as people I admire.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the 60 minutes segments very carefully. Note that in some cases they present video with the reporter voice over repeating what was said rather than simply playing an audio recording. That's because they didn't record audio for legal reasons.
Re:Double confused (Score:5, Insightful)
If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really complain about the unfairness of the laws when you have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE? Really?
Many states (plus the federal government for recordings across state lines) make a very large distinction between video and audio recording. Video is usually fine, with certain major limitations. Audio is often/usually not fine, again with many caveats. Every state is different.
If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed. Please, take those 20 minutes.
And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions. You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Re:Double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
As the summary said, "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim".
Most of those states were very conservative states, and most of the investigations were started with the intent of proving that PP was breaking the law.
And yet exactly ZERO states have announced that they found any wrongdoing by PP. Zero. These are states like Texas and Kansas, hardly liberal strongholds.
So, you can believe "folks you trust" who have claimed something but offered no evidence, or you can believe the states who dearly wanted to find something incriminating but who didn't. I mean, what you are saying is that the governments of Kansas and Texas really hate PP but have decided not to attack them this one time (while still trying to outlaw them and defund them). This makes no sense.
PETA does this routinely (Score:5, Insightful)
Felonies? (Score:3)
Is recording someone really a felony? I would expect it only to be against the law if you released the recording, and still a civil matter. Their are entire shows, Marketplace for one, which operate on recording people secretly to uncovering illegal and suspect business practices.
Re: (Score:3)
Is recording someone really a felony?.
Are you really asking this when about 20 seconds of googling would tell you? Wow. Not a fan of facts, I see.
In many states, recording audio when all parties have not agreed is very very illegal, yes. California is one of these states. The laws are complex, full of caveats and details, and vary between states and between audio and video recordings. Shows like "Marketplace" are very careful to stay on one side of the law. These yahoos were not, which means they probably committed a felony.
Also, shows li
Re: (Score:3)
As these videos led to a terrorist attack [wikipedia.org], I think charging those idiots with a felony is entirely appropriate.
That the felony in question is only related to the recording of the video is irrelevant to me. Al Capone was, after all, arrested for tax evasion.
There are no first amendment issues here (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not have the right to film the police all the time, anywhere. Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.
This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded, but they are still a private organization. In their own offices, they have an expectation of privacy, unless they knowingly give it up> You cannot knowingly give it up if you being secretly recorded.
Some states (and, IIRC, federal law) require the consent of only one party to record. California is not one of them. Some states that require all-party consent treat it as a civil offense - you can sue someone who records you without permission. California is not one of them. Some states treat it as a misdemeanor - you can go to jail for it. California is not one of them.
California has made audio recordings, when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without permission from all parties, a felony. 14 people secretly recorded, 14 charges (plus on for conspiracy).
These yahoos chose California from the perception (not especially accurate) that it is the most eeeeeevillllll librul state, and thus, most likely to get them footage they could edit into something that will get them a lot of money.
They choose poorly. Now they get to pay the price.
Re: (Score:2)
They choose poorly.
This.
You would think that someone setting up a sting like this would seek even a little bit of legal advice. Or even just f**king Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when they are in a public place, performing their duties.
This is all about the expectation of privacy. Planned Parenthood might be, to a small degree, publicly funded,
"To a small degree" meaning "about 40 percent of their budget comes from the US government."
What about medical privacy? (Score:2)
If you are filming in a medical facility are you not violating medical privacy laws? Intruding on the rights of health care workers and possibly other patients?
Over simplification (Score:3)
We did. We determined that it is a right to film government officials in public. This filming (and subsequent editing that changed the meaning of the conversation) occurred not in public and not with Government officials
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying any entity that receives any kind of government money invalidates it's employees rights to not be recorded without their knowledge?
From the road maintenance crews, to the contract cleaners, to the defence contractors, to the winner of the $500 council prize for poetry?
Re: (Score:3)
Road maintenance crews have no right to on-the-job privacy unless they're using the porta-potty or something similar, as they're out in public. The rest, you have a point. California has some laws that seem intentionally designed to facilitate their abuse, and the wiretapping laws are among them -- but this doesn't seem to be a case of abuse, and attempting to hold this up as such is more likely to tighten the grip of authority than pry loose from it. I hope the ACLU isn't jumping on this one, they need a b
Re: (Score:3)
This is a serious question, and I understand that things in the US are different from where I live, but what law or constitutional clause grants a "right to not be recorded"?
Where I live, there are laws covering this under various contexts and circumstances - for example, any one of multiple parties to a conversation can record it without the others' knowledge or permission, but someone who is *not* a party to that conversation, i.e. an eavesdropper, or clandestine listener, may not record the conversation
Re: (Score:2)
The two party consent laws have never gone to the Supreme Court. Course, that may change in 3 years with this case.
State of California. (Score:5, Informative)
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-xavier-becerra-announces-charges-filed-against-david-robert
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Complaint%20Affidavit_SF.PDF?
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:4, Interesting)
but what law or constitutional clause grants a "right to not be recorded"?
It's covered under a general "right to privacy" that arises from precedents and "common law". It is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, so it is not a "right" in that sense.
At the same time there is no enumerated "right to record private conversations without consent" in the Constitution, so laws against doing that are not forbidden. That could brush up against freedom of the press in the First amendment, depending on the circumstances of the recordings.
Where I live, there are laws covering this under various contexts and circumstances - for example, any one of multiple parties to a conversation can record it without the others' knowledge or permission
In the US, it mostly varies state-by-state. What you describe is called "one-party consent", which is sufficient in some states. California is not one of them, and the videos were recorded in California. California requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation, and it is common practice to announce that everyone is being recorded at the beginning of the conversation to document that consent has been given.
It should also be noted that video and audio recording often have different laws.
Is it that an otherwise private entity like PP that receives tax/public funds suddenly becomes a government agency
No.
and therefore subject to the 4th amendment?
The 4th amendment prevents the government from searching and seizing property without due process (warrant, court order, etc). It's not applicable.
The 1st amendment includes "freedom of the press", which restricts the government from hampering the efforts of journalists. But PP isn't the government. Nor is PP bringing these charges, the state of California is. And California can bring charges whether or not PP wants them to do so.
The defendants are going to attempt to claim they were acting as journalists and thus shielded by the First amendment. The fact that they edited the recordings to completely change the context is not going to help that claim.
Re: Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:2, Insightful)
Dumbest thing I hope to read today.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Journalism is gathering a story, including the evidence to back up said story, and then informing people of that story.
These worthless lying sacks of shit made up the story to say what they wanted it to say. That's not journalism, that being a fucking liar. They broke the law doing so as well, which will hopefully be punished for being the criminal acts that it was. I
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:4, Insightful)
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
(nI'm not Christian, nor conservative)
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no barrier between government and society. Government is deeply ingrained into society, no know human society does not have some form of government even it is only on the scale as a council of elders or patron of a family. And society is very much a part of and influence on government. They are inseparable.
You're full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
For 5 thousand years of recorded history if we left anything that really mattered (food production, health care, education, transportation) to the unorganized masses of people it either didn't get done, got done really badly or only got done for the really rich. Everytime people banded together and agreed that there was a minimum that should be done by and for people motherfucking shit got done. That got us to the moon. It cured diseases that plagued us for centuries. It's why we've never had a repeat of the dust bowl/Great Depression.
Said it before, say it again: Don't leave the free market in charge of anything more important than a Twinkie. And keep an eye on 'em while they're making that Twinkie or they'll fill it with sawdust.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a lot cheaper to simply pass laws that prohibit actions that one doesn't want, than it is to force one's self to engage in actions that theoretically should be required but cannot be enforced.
It's also because people are inherently selfish.
It's obviously not that. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you are believing their words.
Of course, the position is completely nonsensical and hypocritical if one imagines the goal is devotion to needs of health and life of fetuses.
The explanation which is consistent, however, is the recognition that Forced Accidental Parenthood is awful, and that's the entire point of it: because the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women who had sex and further inflict this punishment on their spawn to hurt the mothers even more and use as a fearful example to others.
Re:It's obviously not that. (Score:4, Insightful)
That would certainly appear to be the underlying reason for the entire Pro-life movement, and often enough they don't even bother disguising it. When you have elected representatives declaring that that pregnancy produced by rape is somehow "God moving in mysterious ways", you're dealing with people who have a pretty clear idea that women's only real purpose in this world is to collect semen and pop out babies.
Of course, once the baby is born, those fine God-fearing men could care less.
Goodbye Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
As one of the handful of Christians on Slashdot, hopefully I can provide a reasonable, rational counterargument to the string of assumptions about "Pro-Lifers"...
1. Yes, there are crazies. We have them. The left has their SJWs, and the right has the weekly Pro-Life protesters whose concern ends on delivery day. Yes, I know. Extremism on *any* cause is invariably going to make a mess of the initial concern. Moreover, it's not helpful that the extremists tend to make the headlines, while the majority of people who adhere to a cause tend to be willing to avoid making waves despite agreement with the core principle. If, for the sake of argument, we could ignore the third standard deviation for a few minutes, I'd appreciate it.
2. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the core question involved here is this: "At what point is it 'human'?". Is it at birth, and not a minute before? Is it 'human' the day before? Is it third trimester (i.e. where the fetus can generally survive outside the womb)? Is it when it can feel pain, when there's a heartbeat, detectable brainwave patterns, when RNA recombinates, when the zygote attaches to the uteran wall, or when the egg is fertilized? Right now, the legal limit is 'birth', but I submit that there's at least some validity to the notion that a child should be legally protected as much on the day before its birth as the day after. Disregarding the rhetoric and talking points, the core question at hand is where the line should be drawn.
3. Many Christians *do* provide help and care to mothers amidst crisis pregnancies. CareNet is a network of crisis pregnancy centers that are completely donor supported and provide assistance for women amidst crisis pregnancies both before and after their birth. Diapers and formula are freely given to those who need it. Most have a skeleton crew of paid staff with the majority being volunteers, all of whom go through formal training, medical services are being provided by licensed medical doctors, and they're hella quick to dismiss anyone who treats those who come for care with anything but dignity and respect. There are lots of Christians who are looking to solve the problem, rather than legislate it into a criminal act.
4. Yes, chauvinists are still a thing. However, pursuant to point #2, there's some middle ground between "it's not worth protecting until after birth" and "women belong barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".
Yes, we can do better, and I (and many like me) am working on it. However, I have a completely sincere question: The elected officials who say dumb things and the protesters who clearly haven't done a lick of critical thinking get a whole lot of airtime, for free, and it echoes far and long. What should those who are trying to address the matter in the right way supposed to do? Put a camera in the face of every woman who walks in? Facebook Live every time a pro-life individual calls out a wreckless protester? Burn people at the stake if they say mean things to someone amidst a crisis pregnancy? Or, on the other hand, not act in accordance to a held set of beliefs, even if it's in a way that does not impose upon others? If doing the wrong thing gets publicity and doing the right thing doesn't, the narrative is going to be swayed as a result. I'm perfectly content helping out in the shadows and not claiming any sort of credit for it (happy to give any credit to God to whom it's due), but I honestly wish it were possible to realistically counterbalance the "Pro-Lifers are hypocritical jerks" narrative without publicity whoring and am completely open to suggestions in that respect.
On the topic at hand, if they took the videos in a state which requires both parties consent to recordings, then yes, they should have acted in accordance with the law. The situation they're in now is what it means to be a martyr, and if they did what they did because they believed in it enough to break the law, then this is the consequence and I while I wish them the best in court (due process is everyone's right), if the court does not rule in their favor, then that is the nature of martyrdom.
Thanks for reading.
Re:Goodbye Karma (Score:4, Interesting)
Although that's close to the right question, I think it need a bit of adjustment. Firstly, insert "a", as in "At what point is it 'a human'?" The unfertilised egg is arguably already 'human'--it's human tissue--but not a human. Secondly, possibly further change "a human" to "a person". If we're thinking of "a human" as an animal, i.e. as a body, that's the wrong approach. We can quite happily talk about multi-headed animals, e.g. Cerberus the three-headed dog, but we'd never talk about "multi-headed people". We'd talk about conjoint twins. Reposting something I posted elsewhere:
I think it's a mind, not a body, that defines a person. One body is usually associated with one mind. However if we think about (or postulate) cases where this isn't the case, I think it becomes obvious that it's the mind that's important, and the body is just a vessel.
e.g. We think of Conjoint/Siamese twins as twins, two people, not one person, because there are two minds, despite there being only one body. If a person is decapitated, they are dead and gone, regardless of whether their body could be kept on life support, because it is the mind that is important not the body, and the mind is gone. Considering the hypothetical situation in "body swap" stories like Freaky Friday, we would say that the people are in different bodies, not that the people have different minds in them, because it is the mind, not the body, that defines the person.
There can't be a mind until after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks after fertilisation), because connections don't begin to form in the cerebral cortex until then, so until then there is just an empty vessel, IMHO.
Re:Goodbye Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a way you can do it: Disavow some of your crazies, there are more than a few of them around, including the submitter. Instead of ignoring, confront them and dissuade them from their madness. They're not hard to find, here in this thread, and you can make a good start by standing against them.
That's a suggestion for you. Even these "activists" would be a good target. Denounce them. Condemn them as enemies to your movement. Because they are, same as Trump lying about abortions in the debate, or Fiorina making up a story about seeing an abortion video, or Eric Harris committing an act of terrorism.
You lose the moral high ground with every lie, every deceit, and every act of violence.
And do look at the abuses at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They're as bad as the Catholic ones in Ireland.
No problem. I disavow those who who cause harm to others, direct or indirect, specifically in the context of the movement which wishes to defend the lives of those who are not yet born They are enemies to the movement.
I have never lied about anything regarding those in Planned Parenthood or the nature of abortions, I have never harmed anyone with whom I have disagreed on the topic, and I have never knowingly supported, directly or indirectly, any group, organization, or facility which has done so, and have researched the groups and facilities I have supported to ensure that, to the best of my knowledge, they are providing assistance and services with dignity and respect to their recipients.
If that counts, you have what you want. If it does not count because I have not single-handedly silenced every individual who has caused harm, then the suggestion requires clarification.
Re:Goodbye Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.
Where did I say that my side automatically wins? I went to great lengths to indicate that the situation is more nuanced than "a unified group of people who believe that abortion recipients deserve the death penalty".
As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.
If the recordings were doctored in a way that is misleading, then by all means, I concur with you. However, I submit that it's not false witness if the editing was not manipulative or intended to be misleading, and that the illegality of the recordings is a result of the two-party consent requirement. Moreover, if they were manipulatively edited, then by all means, slander charge, maximum sentence. The Pro-Life movement does not need that sort of behavior for the very reasons you've specified.
At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.
How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
I have done neither. I have admitted that there are those who are extremists, but focusing on extremists is a guaranteed way to avoid the possibility of productive discussion as we find common ground on the unacceptability of the extremism while neglecting to address the more rational points of the discord. I did not use an ad hominem attack of any kind on anyone who is Pro-Choice, I did not tell anyone what their medical choices would be, and I did not advocate for any method, legislative or otherwise, which would give me such a 'right'.
Re: (Score:3)
2 copies of every video were released; the edited copy (for time reasons) and the unedited copy. Even when reviewed by liberal groups they could not find any substantive changes due to editing.
Re: (Score:3)
Just read what he wrote. Its civil and reasonable and on Slashdot. How many of those kind of posts do you see here?
For the leaders it's just good politics (Score:3)
Re:It's obviously not that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well you can't, so now you have to grapple with the real issue, and not the fantasy one.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not too good with reading comprehension, huh? That isn't a forecast, it's a question about where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly wording but to me is quite close -- Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. Luckily, he didn't get into the office.
"I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother. I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.politicalgarbagech... [politicalg...echute.com]
http://www.newslo.com/pregnanc... [newslo.com]
What's the matter, Google too hard for you?
Re: It's obviously not that. (Score:2)
Re:It's obviously not that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. If men could get pregnant, you could have abortions in WalMart while you wait on your tires being rotated.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but better at getting their way.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to inform us about your position on capital punishment? Just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
So buttfucking is wrong, using condoms is wrong and getting rid of unwanted side effects of fucking is wrong. Is there any way to please those idiots?
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a Christian and I don't define life as starting at the instant of fertilization, but doesn't life start at some time that has to be specified by law, a definition that is meaningful in cases like the murder of a pregnant woman? Since have put a lot of effort into legally defining death as cessation of brain activity, why not use the start of brain activity as the definition of humanity in secular law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have had this very thought for many years now.
A close friend had an aneurysm years back, but who was revived (though never resuscitated). In order to remove him from life support, the hospital was required by law to do an EEG to try to detect alpha waves (and thus consciousness, by definition). The test came back negative, and his family helped him to pass on.
I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness. This would see
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a subtle detail being missed here. The murder of a pregnant woman is certainly not at the woman's consent. That's the difference. An abortion is the woman's choice. A murder is not. Glad I could clear that up for you.
You completely missed his point, so hard in fact I suspect it was a deliberate choice to misunderstand what he was saying. What he was saying was that a fetus, unborn child, or hell, a fully born child (or adult), must be legally and/or morally recognized as a human by some definition as some point in time, and at that point it should be afforded legal protection as a human being. In point of fact, under federal law [slashdot.org], an unborn child is recognized as a human if it is the victim of a violent crime. "The woman's choice" is completely irrelevant to the question, for the same reason a woman can't simply choose to kill a 6 month old, because everyone recognizes that a 6 month old is a human person, and one person cannot choose to kill another just because they feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a racism thing. The Anti-Abortion movement is really about ensuring that as many white Christian babies are born as possible, as its more likely whites who use these services in the US. There is the fear of the browning of America.
Look at what the alt-righters are saying, and you'll see the racist basis for the Pro-life movement.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Interesting)
I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, [...]
Sure, let me help you out.
Before the late 1970s, the obsession with fetuses was an entirely Roman Catholic thing. At the time of Roe v Wade, most evangelical Protestants in the US were fine with legal access to abortion at least for health reasons [sbc.net].
In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church [mchorse.com]. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.
This is all quite recent history. The "traditional doctrine" that fetuses have the same moral value as a child is younger than the Happy Meal [patheos.com].
If this is news to you, look at what's now happening with contraception. In 20 years time, people may find it hard to believe that most American evangelical Protestants were fine with contraception at the turn of the 21st century.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:4, Informative)
The RC Church has formally opposed abortion since the 2nd Century AD.
Yes it has. OTOH, the Protestant church and conservative America never did until just a few decades ago.
Re:The Church has been against abortion for 2K yea (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe I used the precise words "an entirely Roman Catholic thing".
We're talking about American conservatism, which has never been dominated by Catholicism.
Re: (Score:3)
.
It's simple, really. Rich white men (or men of any race) seldom become pregnant. If men were forced to give birth:
1. There would be no more multiple child families
2. abortion would be fully government funded (hey, old men can get Viagra on welfare, but women can't get basic health care)
3. The objection to abortion in my experience has less to do with the fetus than it does with the race for the person wanting one. Oh, they'll say it's about
Re: (Score:2)
A third trimester baby is viable, and yet can be legally aborted.
In almost every jurisdiction that I'm aware of (and that's around the world), late-term abortions are not legal unless the fetus is not viable or the mother's health is at significant risk, and almost always require prior medical ethics approval if it's not an emergency.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, clown. California is a two-party consent [dmlp.org] wiretapping state, period.
Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.
Of course it is. The police force work for, and are public employees of, the city/counties/state of California. They are by far more subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, they are granted special powers in very limited and unique circumstances, which is why they should always feel like they're under the public's microscope.
Oh, and by the way, the right to film someone is not the same-- either legally or in common understanding-- as the right to record audio of their conversations. There is an expectation that anyone in a public area as well as the police, who typically work in public areas, can have their image recorded. This is why we have public security cameras. However, in california if you're recording you must provide notices for people walking about saying that for example, a tv show is being recorded here, or this place is mic'd etc.
Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?
Absolutely. They are private citizens, not public servants. What they are NOT is "entirely different" from the rest of the population in the state who are protected from being wiretapped without being first informed and conceding or without a warrant.
Also, you should be aware that Planned Parenthood is not funded with tax money like a charter school is. Planned Parenthood is re-embursed by medicaid just like any other health care organization. And the total amount of reimbursement for abortion-related services comes to exactly zero dollars.
Seriously, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass.
Re: Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Informative)
I can't tell if you're misinformed, stupid, or trolling, but just in case..
Planned Parenthood is not "directly funded out of the taxpayers pockets". There is no line item for Planned Parenthood in the budget. Planned Parenthood, like any other health care provider, is reimbursed by medicaid for services. Like any hospital or doctor. They are not reimbursed for abortions.
Re: (Score:3)
without it they would not have a platform to provide abortions
By the same argument governments fund coffee shops. Since it pays for infrastructure and security, those places couldn't otherwise exist (at least their business would suffer significantly)
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the privacy of police officers while on the job being paid by the public is less than the privacy of two people not employed by the public.
Your privacy is also greater, as is an off-duty police officer's.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Huge difference here: Those police officers are out in the public streets in full view of everyone. There is no expectation of privacy.
The PP employees are (presumably) having their conversation in a private room since you expect the conversation to be well.. private.
If you go into a police station and have a conversation with an officer, you would expect it to be private by default as well because that's a totally different situation from being out on the street.
"Expectation of privacy" is quite an important concept here. Context matters.
Re: (Score:2)
They were at a restaurant, sitting in the outside patio with other patrons. I'm not sure if that's considered public or not.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Your doctor talking to you is different than a policeman's official actions in *public*. It is similar to you talking with your lawyer. Besides, the defendants in the current issue also fraudulently misrepresented themselves which aids proving ill intent. Regarding policemen, the equivalent would be fraudulently misrepresenting oneself as a psychologist for law-enforcement officers and engaging in private conversations in private, taping them, and then publicizing them to shame policemen and the police department as a collective.
What do school vouchers have to do with anything? There is a Constitutional argument there because there is a long-established constitutional restriction particular to religion.
> After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.
Dissent wasn't the problem. """dissent""" which accused Obama of not being a native-born American despite conclusive evidence was clearly a proxy for bigotry as it is about identity not ideas or policy. Secret Muslim sharia sympathizer (despite droning thousands of terrorists to death and whacking Osama) too is pretty much bigotry and not policy dissent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between recording someone in a public place and recording anywhere else.
Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score:4, Insightful)
Police officers are public employees while on duty, reinforced by federal, and California state laws as well as multiple independent court rulings that have nothing to do with said laws that were passed. So, except for the very vocal disagreement from some police unions, it has been unanimous that public recording of the police, as long as they do not physically impede an investigation, shall be allowed without interference. Now, if the people were to start editing the footage like they did in the Planned ParentHood video to falsify the events to create a completely false narrative that would be tampering with evidence, liable and possibly more charges , just like the Planned ParentHood video. If they did it to the cops I'd want them to be nailed just as bad as I want them to be nailed for doing it to the Planned Parenthood.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.
I understood that what they filmed was basically a counselling session, which is pretty much assumed to be private.
BTW, is "Planned Parenthood official" a real thing, or is that a made-up term?
Re:Kangaroo Court (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't think using fraudulent ID, secretly recording conversations in a two-party state, and then editing those recordings to make the people involved sound like their breaking the law when there's no evidence forthcoming that any law is broken is somehow an example of favoritism towards the aggrieved party?
Re:Republicans.... (the right) (Score:4, Informative)
The complete sets of video is posted for all to see... You can go see for your self if PP is telling the truth if you have enough time to watch it all.
I've not see the videos, edited or not, so I don't know, but I've heard from many people I trust that the edited versions are not unfairly edited or pieced together to make PP look bad. Your mileage may vary, but I suggest anybody wishing to make authoritative claims like this not take either side's word for it but go watch the hours of video yourself.
Re:Republicans.... (the right) (Score:5, Informative)
Translation: I totally buy other people's analecdotal claims that I have no intention of verifying.
There's these people I totally trust who say you eat kittens. I won review their evidence, but it's okay if I go around saying you eat kittens, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
So selling something is wrong and trespassing on private property is right?
What are you, a commie?