Slashdot Mirror
Two Activists Who Secretly Recorded Planned Parenthood Face 15 Felony Charges (npr.org)
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."
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.
can no longer record undercover in CA ?
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
> 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?
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?
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.
Perhaps if they changed the name to "Accidental Parenthood" or (more accurately) "Forced Parenthood" it would make you knee-jerk conservatives happier. I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse. If you're so goddam Christian, how about you fund Meals On Wheels for all those veterans you're so enamored of chest-thumping about? How about you fund some inner-city schools instead of starving their funding so you can promote corporate/religious/magnet schools in wealthy neighborhoods? How about walking some the walk you're so fond of talking the talk about?
/stands by for the inevitable deluge of hypocrisy.
Sorry, clown. California is a two-party consent 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.
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.
And Democrats publicly ignore the breaking of the law if they can claim that the "evidence" was collected improperly.
Assuming the recordings where made in CA, They where stupid for recording a conversation in a state that requires all party's consent to the recording, but you do get that this doesn't negate the facts about how PP does business..
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 better test case.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
"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)
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?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
| Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?
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.
There is a difference between recording someone in a public place and recording anywhere else.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Undercover videos are apparently fine when they record evidence of animal abuse.
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/29/california-is-fine-with-undercover-sting-videos-that-expose-animal-cruelty/
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.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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 (excepting police with a warrant, obviously). Most conversations can be recorded if you state the fact up front, which implies consent - but you can also request that it *not* be recorded.
Is it that an otherwise private entity like PP that receives tax/public funds suddenly becomes a government agency and therefore subject to the 4th amendment?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
> I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse.
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.
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.
PS-- your PS doesn't make sense for the above reasons.
PPS-- you are confused about what the word "evidence" is referring to.
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.
While I agree that the "activists" violated California's privacy laws, this is not much different from what PETA routinely does while secretly filming farmers. To my knowledge, this has never resulted in PETA being prosecuted. To the contrary, the video has been used as evidence in legal filings and lawsuits to stop cruelty and abuse against animals.
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This is an old trick that has been used again and again. "They" take a law they want to get passed, like outlawing recording, then pick a case that everyone agrees the subjects are bad people and deserve some prison time. Wanting to see guilty people punished, the public allows these verdicts to proceed unchallenged, without realizing that this will set a precedent, in this case it will outlaw surreptitious recording. I agree that these two people are worms who deserve punishment for lying to harm P.P., but later this new law will be used to persecute and prosecute people who secretly record anything. Some things need to be recorded so that the rest of us who were not there can see what really happened and take appropriate action. The ability to get the word out to the rest of the people about crimes and injustices are what keeps our country free. No wonder many in power want to make that a crime.
Dumbest thing I hope to read today.
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.
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?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The two party consent laws have never gone to the Supreme Court. Course, that may change in 3 years with this case.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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?
In this case, there is a specific California law.
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?
Statistically they're only killing blacks so who cares. /sarcasm
You do not believe that. You want to, but you know it's bullshit.
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.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There already is law on this, and causing unwanted deaths of unborn in cases when they would be likely to survive outside, is already a felony everywhere.
Its a racism thing. The Anti-Abortion movement is really about ensuring that as many white Christian babies are born as possible, as its more likely whites who use these services in the US. There is the fear of the browning of America.
Look at what the alt-righters are saying, and you'll see the racist basis for the Pro-life movement.
A third trimester baby is viable, and yet can be legally aborted.
In almost every jurisdiction that I'm aware of (and that's around the world), late-term abortions are not legal unless the fetus is not viable or the mother's health is at significant risk, and almost always require prior medical ethics approval if it's not an emergency.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I have had this very thought for many years now.
A close friend had an aneurysm years back, but who was revived (though never resuscitated). In order to remove him from life support, the hospital was required by law to do an EEG to try to detect alpha waves (and thus consciousness, by definition). The test came back negative, and his family helped him to pass on.
I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness. This would seem a logical and scientific way to remove the philosophy/religion from the debate altogether and allow everyone to move on.
I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, [...]
Sure, let me help you out.
Before the late 1970s, the obsession with fetuses was an entirely Roman Catholic thing. At the time of Roe v Wade, most evangelical Protestants in the US were fine with legal access to abortion at least for health reasons.
In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.
This is all quite recent history. The "traditional doctrine" that fetuses have the same moral value as a child is younger than the Happy Meal.
If this is news to you, look at what's now happening with contraception. In 20 years time, people may find it hard to believe that most American evangelical Protestants were fine with contraception at the turn of the 21st century.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Per the CDC, 90% of abortions happen within the first three months. Less than 2% happen after 5 months. Almost all states limit abortion to 13 weeks. Exceptions to this are based on medical and/or life threatening reasons.
66-75% of fetuses do not survive if they are born at 23 weeks. It drops to 50% and 10% as the weeks add on. Many of those born too prematurely have issues for the majority, if not their entire lives.
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, 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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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.
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.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
They were at a restaurant, sitting in the outside patio with other patrons. I'm not sure if that's considered public or not.
.
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 the fetus, but wait a bit, and talk about food stamps or such, and they'll say "If you black or brown, it's easy to get, but not for white people that really need it."
I've come to the conclusion that many conservatives (not all) are never happier than when they have their nose firmly shoved into someone elses genitals or wallet.
Oh, and if you want to flame me for my opinion, just remember that my doing so, you've moved yourself into the class I am discussing. Remember, I said "many" not "all".
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
So selling something is wrong and trespassing on private property is right?
What are you, a commie?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
By that logic, all the people receiving food stamps are government employees.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If only they did. The world would so quickly become a much better place.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
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.
Right, a eugenics program started by Margaret Sanger (later adopted by Hitler as a solution to the "Jewish problem") and heartily approved by the KKK (remember Senator Byrd, [D-KKK]?) in order to kill off blacks, Hispanics, and the mentally-ill, but it's those opposed to such that are 'racists' and 'misogynists'.
LOL!
Too funny!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Yes. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
Good luck with that if you're ever in a police station and say something "off the record". No need to worry either since I'm sure if they did record you, you could just make that argument and the police would get 15 felonies filed against them just like these activists.
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.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Right, a eugenics program started by Margaret Sanger (later adopted by Hitler as a solution to the "Jewish problem") and heartilyapproved by the KKK (remember Senator Byrd, [D-KKK]?) in order to kill off blacks, Hispanics , and the mentally-ill, but it's those opposed to such that are 'racists' and 'misogynists'.
I
Wow, Bluestrat, not only did you lie about Margaret Sanger (she actually disfavored abortion, and saw contraceptiveâs as a way to prevent them), you even tried to connect her, a Russian Jew, to Hitler, as if Germany needed her help to invent Zyklon B, then you throw in Byrd while ignoring the GOP embracing Strom Thurmond and the Southern Strategy.
Why not throw in a fabricated quote by Johnson and claim Booth was a Democrat?h
Sorry, but you are the party that attacked Maxine Waters hair this week, treated April Ryan with disrespectâ and spent six years chasing the Birther lie.
Oh, and don't forget Steve "more white babies" King.
Reap the fruits of sowing the wind.
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.
That makes sense for us secular humanists. But if your primary concern is baked in religion and you know it, then why accept as legitimate data that will very very likely hand your opponents 99% of what they want on a silver platter?
Furthermore, a human 2 year old has a vast amount of brain activity compared to most mammals, but a healthy newborn I would guess is not so impressive. Once the human level activity lines are drawn, someone will test the brainwaves of your hamburger before it is chopped up. That will make some animal rights weirdos esctatic, and the religious groups will declare the whole process as ridiculous.
At best it will be put back on the states, but if Gorsuch is an example of Trump's future nominees, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> If you're so goddam Christian, how about you fund Meals On Wheels for all those veterans you're so enamored of chest-thumping about?
Many Meals on Wheels projects are supported by Christian groups, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:
> Meals on Wheels [Calgary] was formed in response to a plea from the Hospital Chaplaincy Committee of the Calgary Presbytery of the United Church.
http://www.catholiccharities.c...
I personally volunteered for Meals on Wheels work as part of a Christian group.
> How about you fund some inner-city schools instead of starving their funding so you can promote corporate/religious/magnet schools in wealthy neighborhoods?
Christian groups tend to fund their own schools, but there are many that serve poor inner-city areas.
> How about walking some the walk you're so fond of talking the talk about?
Christians and Christian organizations pour enormous resources into charity work. Many of the biggest charities in the USA are Christian.
The blanket assumption that Christians or conservatives (as a whole) do not "walk the walk" is unsustainable.
they revel in it. Most of these are folks who, for whatever reason, didn't get what they wanted out of life. They're bitter as hell about that and what others to suffer the same fate. I've seen it on the left too with some LGBT folks I know who get upset when the younger generation doesn't face as much bullying. The difference being that when I call the LGBTs on it they snap out of it and realize they're being jerks. The right wing just double down.
I think it's a basic childish (animalistic?) desire for "fairness". They got knocked up and/or knocked/someone up too soon and it ruined their lives. They can't bear the thought of someone else "getting away" with it. The suffered for their mistakes and they'll be damned if everybody else doesn't. As the saying goes, Misery Loves Company.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and so is that Fred shmuck. Adding apostrophes to his name and the name of some crap book he wrote won't distract from that fact.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's bullshit. I've seen it for myself: Christian soup kitchens require desperate, hungry people to sit for an hour for a sermon before they're allowed to have any food. Giving away something with strings attached, even if they're not actually financial, is not "giving from the bottom of your heart".
there's records of them getting together and discussing how to make a wedge issue that would divide the working class and settling on abortion. They didn't even try to hide it because they didn't need to. It's a perfect wedge issue because it's so divisive. Just look at what they named it ("Pro-Life"/"Pro-Choice").
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
so long as they're not recording a conversation and just filming the animal abuse then you haven't broken any wiretapping laws. It's one of the consequences of animals being purely (and largely unregulated) property. Nice try though. Really nice.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Absolutely. But it's an informed conjecture. Actually, more of an, I don't know...opinion?
and #2 ends in a lie.
Define your terms. If the only woman's healthcare in 50 miles is a closed Planned Parenthood clinic, then it's not a lie.
Do you think I like abortion? Why? I in fact hate it and wish it was not an option some feel they need. I just happen to think it's none of my damned business to tell someone what they can't and can't have medically for a conceptus I have no involvement in. I also hate and loathe the death penalty.
Some would call abortion murder. OK. I will simply point out the Bible says murderers are sinners and God will punish them. Great. News flash: I'm not God.
Don't look now, but I'm pretty sure neither are you.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
No, you idiot. Tax refund is not payment for work done.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You'd murder actual live people on the pretext of saving the life of an unborn child. Anti-abortion advocates like you are stupid, vicious animals.
Just can't stay on topic, can you? I expressed no opinion about abortions or fetuses. My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials — can be recorded by taxpayers while on the job (with the obvious exceptions of those doing classified work, etc.)
How about you stick to the topic at hand, uhm?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Obviously, privacy of police officers is less equal than that of Planned Parenthood officials.
And you have a problem with that why? Police officers on duty don't have the same expectation of privacy that a private non profit and its officials have.
Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?
What law enforcement powers do PP employees have again?
receiving even a little bit of tax money changes everything.
So PP employees should be able to go out and write tickets for speeding and stuff because they get a little tax money?
I notice you don't mention any applicable law. If we just go off of the vague assertion that it "changes everything" rather than a concrete law, then there are plenty of negative ways we could interpret that which make matters worse.
From what I'm reading here, this case doesn't look good for the activists. They committed fraud, they covertly videoed someone (which incidentally may be illegal to do even when the target is a police officer), and libeled Planned Parenthood afterward. The first two are felonies. The last a civil tort.
In this case, yes. People (including police officers) conducting their activities in public spaces do not have the expectation of privacy.
People (including Planned Parenthood employees) conducting their activities in private spaces in California do have the expectation of privacy. California is a two-party consent state, which means that in a private conversation, both parties must consent to recording.
It's super simple. You can throw up useless chaff like school vouchers if you want, but the law is pretty clear.
Umm. No. Get the supreme court to agree with you on that one, and I'll change my answer.
My objection is based on one very very simple concept: I am not God. I don't have the ultimate authority or prurience to know when a singe cell is a "life" or not.
I do know four things;
God punishes sinners, in accordance with His mercy and the sinner's repentance.
I am not God.
Neither are you.
God is awesome.
Therefore I don't hesitate to post using my long time pseudonym. Yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. Why don't I use my real name? Because I've already been shot twice by people that think abortion is murder, but don't hesitate to attempt murder themselves. I happen to loathe abortion. I happen to wish women didn't feel the need for it. But I also feel I have no right, nor any Holy Right to tell someone else how to obtain grace. I live my life in a way I hope is an example. Only God knows if it's right or not. So I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong or that you are "stupid" or that you are living in "fantasy world", only that I trust God a lot more than to assume He needs me to pass laws for force others to live His Will.
It is not for me to be the proctor of other's righteous lives - only to be and live that which I perceive to be right.
If sin is impossible, then grace is also impossible. For what good is it for people to be forced into Grace? That is an empty husk, the shell of the nut.
And if, as some believe, there is no God, then there is even less reason for me to forbid their choices.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Again, you ignore the woman's choice
You are getting ahead of yourself. Rights to life and rights to choose are both very important, but before we can even begin to compare them, we need to figure how much rights are there to begin with. While it is obvious that egg has no rights, wile a 18-year-old has all of them, there blurry lines in between. Even where abortion is legal, I am not aware of legislation that would permit it, if the child could survive caesarean section. And yes, I don't know all the medical terms.
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)
sed 's/prurience/prescience/g'
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
what world is this when you get criminalized for exposing criminals ?
Whistleblowers are so bad for elitists who think the laws do not apply to them. Laws are only made for poor people who can't bribe that same law.
All in all , the law should not be wondered they don't get respected anymore.
I think this is on the right track. However I think it's specifically higher brain function, thoughts and feelings, which is important. Lower brain functions, such as automatic reflexes, just serve a supporting role, IMO. I have heard that this is covered in Morowitz and Trefil (1992)--The facts of life: Science and the abortion controversy. Apparently it's the cerebral cortex that's the seat of consciousness--i.e. thoughts and feelings--and it doesn't begin to form connections until 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks of pregnancy).
"Pay attention to who's in the room"... to deal with babies born alive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeINzcwb3qU
This is evil beyond belief, and the idea that the investigators are somehow criminals is just typical of the evil establishment that condones, funds and encourages the atrocity that is abortion.
So, all investigative journalists should be sued? Or only those that go after entities that you are in favor of?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Are laws are rooted in Christian morality not secularism.
Today, Christian moral code(s) are an element in a secular civilization, not enforced by a dominant theocracy.
I am at a complete loss how this political interest story has anything to do with news for nerds? I can find politically interesting shit to argue about over at the politically interesting news and comment sites.
The four "Liberals" on Supreme Court — your part of it — did agree in the decision I linked to. If some school vouchers are taken to a religious school, they said, that makes the entire voucher program unconstitutional because tax money "supports religion".
The rest of the Court disagreed and "Liberalism" lost this time, but not in an earlier case like that.
Receiving even a modicum of public funds is a game-changer — as it should be. And then, of course, comes the general and common sense rule of thumb, that California's anti-recording laws are violating: "whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded".
I, once again, ask you to come up with an argument for recording police, that can not be used to support recording of PP officials.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials . . .
As usual, mi, you are full of shit. For someone who rails against government so much, you'd think you would have a basic grasp of what government is.
Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that is incorporated in the state of New York (session-based, search for"Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc."). You see, a corporation is "a legal entity, other than a natural person which often has similar rights in law as a person."
The employees of a corporation are not magically transformed into "government officials" under any legal or logical standard, not even when that corporation receives money from the government. Your absurd, post-hoc rationalizing argument means that you also think Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity are government entities and their employees are government officials.
Being a government official has wide ranging legal effects from defamation standards to bribery laws to special criminal penalties for threatening one. Words have meanings, and if you want to talk in a grownup conversation, you should use the real definitions, not the special ones mi made up in his head.
Nothing posted to
They don't receive government funding.
There is no part of the budget that is tagged "PP"
What they do is provide services (Medicare and Title X) and bill the government for those services just like doctors and hospitals do.
It is just that they cater to the poor across America and provide a ton of services to those who would mostly be turned away in clinical practices.
They are a big provider for the underserved.
They get a lot of money from services they provide that others will not.
No way to Defund Planned Parenthood" that... that is a moronic phrase.
Don't break the law.
If you do you will have some level of consequence in most cases.
Pretty certain Delaiden knew he was breaking the law.
He was willing to do what he did anyway because he fashions himself a crusader in a holy cause.
states rights.... that is what people want.
Well some states will have different laws than others.
Best know the law if it is not uniform across the states.
How are California wiretapping laws abuse exactly?
They are designed to protect those who don't know they are being recorded from those who are recording.
I would say the law protects the rights of people to not be recorded without their knowledge.
PP receives payments for the feds for services rendered. They do not receive money from a budgetary line.
They receive money for services under Medicaid and Title X, just like hospitals and doctors who see patients.
Pretty certain you wouldn't classify highway building contractors, doctors, hospitals, defense industry contractors as government employees just because the government pays them for services they provide.
"Receiving public money makes your office a public space and the employees — public servants."
Not in the real world or under any law I am aware of. Where did you get that from?
I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness.
You do realize it's rather difficult to attach electrodes to the skull of a fetus, right? Given that it is inside a human who actually has rights.
This would seem a logical and scientific way to remove the philosophy/religion from the debate altogether and allow everyone to move on.
"Alpha waves = consciousness" is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Also, infant brains are far less developed than child/adult brains. And fetus brains are far less developed than infant brains.
There is no natural line. All of development is a continuous process.
The police officers are state officials, and furthermore they have the legal authority to use force against citizens.
Planned Parenthood may receive some government money, but it is a private organization with no special legal powers.
Filming police acts as a check on government abuse, and it should be a specifically enumerated constitutional right.
Too bad we didn't have video recorders back in the 1700s when the Bill of Rights was written, or else it probably would have been included.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Strange that, isn't it. You don't want to talk about the fact that the woman on the video admits that SOME of the babies are ALIVE after the 'abortion'.
Sorry - 'fetuses' - wouldn't want you to have to face reality now, would we!
Notice that all those in favour of abortion use the word 'fetus' instead of 'baby', I wonder why..,
Notice that all those in favour of abortion don't want you to even talk about what abortion IS, or to look at pictures of the results of an abortion. Why is that? Because it's so obviously horrific and evil that you know you'll lose the argument?
Why are millions of women getting pregnant "by accident" every year, all over the planet? Are women so stupid that they can't remember to take one pill, once a day?
(I am an atheist, by the way)
So let's talk about the DISMEMBERMENT of living babies, in the womb, and why you think that is acceptable. This is the most evil atrocity the world has ever known, and it carries on precisely because of all the pro abortion scum who like to deny reality, obfuscate, bait and switch, and continue this evil.
"Don't call them babies, that's creepy"
Did any of you actually WATCH the video to see what the abortionist actually said, so that you can address it? Oh wait - you can't justify or defend anything she said, so you're concentrating on the 'evil' people who filmed her saying it.
"I go up to 24 weeks". Why do they say it in weeks? So that you won't think of SIX MONTHS. That's how far along a baby can be when these sadists dismember them alive... Do you understand how evil that is? If you don't, what IS evil in the mad world that you live in?
You also all know that you can't win a debate, which is why you wish to silence dissent, and you wish to silence EVIDENCE like that shown in this video, an abortionist directly admitting that she dismembers babies. These are atrocities beyond comprehension, but rather than try to stop them, you would rather protect your own feelings and pretend it's not happening. How utterly pathetic.
Exactly. For example, you can record any phone conversation in California, but you must either say explicitly that it is being recorded near the beginning of the conversation or have a warning beep on the line every 20 seconds or so. It is not as if you are even required to ask permission, but you are required to let the other party know about the recording device being used. To fail to inform the other party is considered a kind of fraud -- free speech has never protected intentional fraud.
Please mod parent up for noting that California is exercising authority understood as existing under Common Law, not a specific power enumerated under the state or federal constitutions.
I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits until a state does something you don't like. It's called - a state law. The supreme court has not invalidated it, no matter how much of a long, stupid and completely off tangent attempt you make to try to shoehorn one thing into meaning another.
So the answer to your question: "Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?" is.. NO, only fucking morons who don't understand the difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company would have had their heads so far up their ass to think that's what they were supposed to have learned.
And lets be real clear.... not only did NPR report none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing, INCLUDING the fucking fake christian sociopaths running Texarse. Here's a good rundown if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to be bothered to read it: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/...
These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits, the likes of which normal people have come to expect from conservatives and fake christians, lying like little bitches because they're too fucking moronic to live in reality.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
And... you're defending criminals because you agree with them.... They broke the law, which would have been fairly obvious with minimal investigation. They then had a complaint filed against them. Do you not investigate something clearly a criminal act because you agree with said act? How very fucking conservative of you.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
yeah, don't you save yours too?
Cheap storage VM.
Isn't what they did what ALL investigative journalism does? When 20/20 or 60 minutes runs an expose and films people surreptitiously what do you suppose that is?
Leaking stolen documents is also against the law. Did we lock up NYTimes writers and editors for publishing the Pentagon Papers? Nope.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
For lying sacks of shit like you that can't stand living in reality? Yeh, looks like you have plenty of time to lie all you want. Tell me, does you're asshole ever get jealous of your mouth for all the shit coming out of it? Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
No, what they did is not journalism. The fact you think it was shows why this world is such a fucked up place: really stupid people.
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. It all still won't change the fact that you're a gullible fucking idiot only listening to things that agree with your opinion... not matter how fucked-in-the-head-crazy your opinion starts out as.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The law requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a very big loophole.
In some cases even having a meeting in your office with the door open can be considered outside this law let alone having a meeting in a public restaurant (where most of these recordings happened).
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
You're combining several things.
1. Is it criminal to surreptitiously film activities if one is an investigative reporter?
1a. If so, are criminal charges brought forward in a consistent manner (ie: everyone who surreptitiously films people is brought up on charges)
2. Did the investigative reporters lie and make up things (Dan Rather) or edit film in such a way to distort the record (Katie Couric).
2a. Is such lying grounds for bringing criminal charges?
2b. If so, are criminal charges brought forward in a consistent manner.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
A long time ago, the ACLU defended the right of Neo-Nazis to hold a march--because if they left the court deny them that right, then it'd be established that a community has the ability to deny groups the right to march merely because of what that group is.
You don't have to agree with what they did to recognize that if we get an established precedent that says that "You cannot record public officials (whom the state defines as broadly as possible) without their consent, for any purpose," this can and will be abused, and it will be too late to do your push for how photography is not a crime. The law here, in and of itself, has Problems, but if it's permitted to stand without successful challenge, the courts can and will use that to keep it.
Odds are, this case was chosen as a test case--by California, to get the precedent they want. If you're not willing to care about everybody's rights--you don't really care about anybody's. Regardless of who happens to be charged, the problem some of us have here is that this is a bit too transparent a way to get it so the state can make it a crime to record the cops.
Also, honestly, your entire argument is pretty authoritarian--it's certainly not that of classical liberalism. It's the state's responsibility to prove they are criminals; merely charging somebody with a crime does not mean they committed that crime nor make them criminals, and the state is the one upon whom the burden rests to prove that the person has committed the specific crime they are charged with--not that they committed a crime, but that they committed what they have been charged with. (That the defendant committed a different crime has been quite successfully used as a defense, and sometimes it happens that the state simply fails to prove that specific important part of their case.)
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.
I provided a link to a web article on this, which made the case that California has a double standard. I found this persuasive and I shared it here on Slashdot. It didn't occur to me that the premise of the article might be flawed due to the whole audio vs. video aspect... I thought surreptitious recording of any nature was forbidden.
Neither the article I linked nor the NPR article linked on the Slashdot story covered the audio vs. video distinction and I didn't think of it on my own.
Let me state clearly for the record: I Googled up a few pages about surreptitious recording, and it does look to me like California permits surreptitious video recording but not audio. This answers to my satisfaction the question as to why Mercy for Animals can make surreptitious videos and not get charged. The article whose link I provided was based on a flawed premise, and I wish I had checked up on it before posting it here.
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.
I didn't think you were being rude until this sentence.
I didn't spend 20 minutes Googling for background because I mistakenly thought I already understood the background. I think it's fair to call this "a mistake" rather than evidence that I "don't really let facts get in the way of [my] 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.
Friend, you have made the mistake of generalizing from limited data. I'm not perfect, but I haven't done anything to earn this lecture from you.
I made a mistake and you called me on it. Fair enough. But it's not reasonable to conclude on the basis of that one mistake that I don't care about facts at all, or that I am completely uninformed.
If I wanted to be ironic, here I would lecture you on how you seem awfully quick to judge, and that you should work to rid yourself of this flaw. But all I know for sure is that you did it this one time.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ad-hominem attacks are where it's at. I'm with you there. But I can't help but think you might have missed the point of the debate. Person-hood trumps privacy. The only way to argue that killing a fetus is OK in order to protect a woman's privacy is to also argue that the fetus is not a person under the law. And that is absolutely what the law says. The debate is about whether that is the right thing ethically.
The fetus is obviously human, and it is alive. At what point is it a person? I can see several stages of development being the deciding factor myself. Brain activity might be one, heartbeat might be one, viability might be another. You'll have to be careful about viability though because that keeps creeping back earlier and earlier. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure it's not the instant before birth.
You don't have to be a Christian, or white, or male to wonder about when a fetus becomes a person. Ranting about the motivations of the other side doesn't invalidate the basic question.
In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.
Yes. Of course, the choice of abortion as the issue wasn't random. Obviously Roe v Wade (1973) helped it crystalize as a rallying point. But the US had also been working through a gradual expansion of the "franchise of personhood" for a couple of centuries, including abolitionism and anti-segregation, expanding the voting franchise to women and lowering the age limit, etc. Under that cultural regime, fetal personhood was an obvious candidate for the expansion of the personhood franchise - though of course it's not an obvious conclusion, since proponents and opponents remain fiercely divided.
The personhood franchise lets anti-abortion arguments piggyback on the long and powerful history of Civil Rights battles in the US. That distinguishes it from, say, "traditional marriage" (or other anti-LGBT planks).
Lauren Berlant's '94 article "America, 'Fat,' the Fetus" in boundary 2 is one version of this analysis, if anyone's interested.
How about all the millions in Africa that the Christian missionaries "help" by spreading Christianity and teaching them to hate gay people, so that they pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals?
No one is helped by Christianity, it's a religion that only spreads hate and demands money from its followers.
The absence of alpha waves is conclusive of brain death, but the presence of alpha waves is ambiguous, at best. Experiments have detected human-like alpha waves in a bowl of Jell-O.
Ugh. I don't have a part of the supreme court. There's no need to make that into a tiresome us vs. them argument. The court makes decisions, and according to the way we organized our country, those decisions are binding for all of us. There may be justices with whom I agree more often than others, and there may be decisions that I don't like very much, but I don't get to disclaim justices and decisions that I don't like. My part of the court is the whole court.
But, to your larger point, you seem to be asserting the losing argument of a case that went before the supreme court. And I guess you're trying to say that I should agree with that argument because it's "liberal" and so am I and therefore I must support it. But I don't, and more importantly the majority of the court didn't, so it doesn't matter. And I don't need to come up with the argument that you demand: lawmakers and judges have already done it. That's why these people are being prosecuted, and people who record police in public are not. It's already the law.
Thanks for the clarification. Now your argument is less absurd. If we want to bring degrees of removal closer, consider this example — company XYZ sells computers to the government, which is a significant client, but not the only one. Would you believe that this company is publicly funded? I can't agree on that. Do public funds end up in the company? Yes, they do.
What you seem to suggest is that government should take an ethical stance and boycott those businesses that do wrong. But this is absurd, since boycott is employed by those, who only have indirect means of exerting pressure. Governments should combat unethical behaviour by passing laws (bans, regulations or taxation) and enforcing them.
And don't patronize me.
I commend you sir on the way you owned up to your original misunderstanding. A lot of people would not take the time to understand the details and especially to admit that maybe they did not know everything at all times. The GP's comments were a bit harsh, but I bet they are used to people not acting as civilized as you do. Thank you, you are a benefit to discussions on this site.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
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.
Yes; I really worry about laws or uneven enforcement of laws that create a special "media class" of people that have rights the rest of us don't have. That means that we'll end up with an entrenched media that doesn't face real competition and accountability.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
We aren't talking about "human lives". We're talking about embryos and fetuses.
Every time an anti-freedom activist lies about what abortion actually is a kitten dies.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Wait. Let's try to stay on point: Planned Parenthood said the footage was misleadingly edited.
Recording the meetings was one thing (and not legal).
But more important was that they fudged, faked, twisted the footage.
It does not require gigantic technical skills to edit tape.
But, in this case, it is illegal.
Yes, indeed. Now, the PP officials were certainly not "off-duty", so that does not apply. But I'll even grant you, that it is unclear and a "gray area".
Moreover, I have argued earlier, that while I personally support the right to record anything and everything one is legally allowed to see, I do not understand, how the First Amendment in particular protects such an activity.
But the court's — and the Slashdot's — prevailing opinion was, that it does. It is patently obvious from all the namecalling and other passions expressed both in that earlier discussion and this one, that this right to record depends on who is being recorded. As I suggested, had these two activists been from the Left — secretly recording, say, a lobbyist discussing abolition of some FCC regulation or an effort to stall legalization of "gay marriage" — the same prosecutor would've looked the other way and the same folks on Slashdot would've cheered.
Indeed, had it been a guerilla attempt to expose LM's colluding with lawmakers or to violate some environmental rule, no one would've asked, wait a minute — how did these guys record this? And, even if someone did ask, no prosecution would've resulted from the question.
Let's put it this way — it is a much smaller logical jump to conclude, that they are public officials, than to claim, that the First Amendment — the law about Freedom of Expression — protects a perfectly silent and expressionless activity.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's a good question, and historians disagree on this.
Abortion was not illegal in the United States until the latter half of the 19th century. It wasn't talked about before that probably because it was associated with unmarried sex. It became illegal at around the same time that childbirth became medicalised, so one leading theory is that it may have been part of that push to get midwives out of the picture and replace them with doctors.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Oh I'm definitely not saying the police don't take liberties with their powers that they shouldn't have. I'm just saying that comparing such to PP isn't fair.
Though there's still at least some distinction there: You're in their house so expecting that they'll follow your rules is a bit foolhardy, and you can be fairly sure that they won't publicize any recordings they do take that they weren't supposed to (that is, if nobody knows they exist then there's a bit of a no harm, no foul rule in play. Same as if the people who recorded the PP meetings just kept it to themselves -- nobody would be the wiser even though they technically were still in the wrong.)
That said, there are times in a police station when you can absolutely guarantee privacy -- when you're with your lawyer. The police may not get punished for invading your personal privacy (even when they should,) but they sure as hell would take some heat if it came to light that they were recording your confidential meetings with your lawyer.
It is also worth noting that if PP was not tax payer funded, the people in question would not have bothered to film them anyway. That is why I don't buy this nonsense about this being considered a little mom and pop shop whose rights were horribly violated by this effort to expose a tax payer funded organization crossing the line into selling body parts of aborted fetuses. (Regardless of how I might feel about the practice - that is irrelevant)
Felonies? Good lord, they're ruining that term too. What happened to the good ol' days when a felony meant something spectacular had happened?!?
Democrats love Planned Parenthood. This site is 80-90 percent Democrat leaning for some reason. The only issue you'll find conservatives and democrats working together here is on H-1B visa reform. Anything else political is pointless to discuss here.
The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.
Life, in the biological sense, cannot begin at conception obviously, since a dead sperm or a dead ovum cannot make in living diploid human. Much less can it begin at birth for obvious reasons. Life doesn't begin it's passed on, so the question lacks coherence and we can easily reject a life-based analysis for resolving this question. That is, of course, unless you are using some specialised defintion of 'human life.' But this means this question resolves itself to how it is that we define the term.
Now we can sensibly ask when some form of legal personhood begins (which some people might mean by 'a human life'), which at common law is birth (but being law subject to re-definition). That this is arbitrary, and therefore philosophically unsatisfying, has at least the benefit of producing a definitive answer.
Philosophically we might consider the fact of individual human consciousness (which does have a beginning) that might more sensibly be considered in resolving the ethics of abortion. The question would be, at what point does the possibility of some form of rudimentary self-awareness begin? Which, I suspect, would lie at some point after conception, but before birth.
HOWEVER, there is also the question of the individual human consciousness and the bodily autonomy of the human who is to host the fetus. To sit around and insist that "the abortion question comes down to ... [the question of] when does a human life begin" or even "when does an individual human consciousness begin" is a characteristic of those whose bodies are unlikely ever to be called upon to act as a host. The abortion question, for many in the debate, comes down to one thing, whose has the right to decide what a woman may do with her own body (including carrying or not carrying a fetus from conception to birth). Everything else, they might insist, is irrelevant.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke