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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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
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.
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+
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.
.
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.
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.
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});
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.
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/
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/
No, you idiot. Tax refund is not payment for work done.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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)
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.
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