It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: EternalSolace

I hope this is the wake up call we need to make a stand and reset our moral compasses.


What would you like to see us reset them to?

Lying, misrepresenting oneself, and then lying more? (As the creators of the videos did?)

Or is that lying and fraud "okay" if you believe it's done for, what, "the greater good"?




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Interesting development.

On one hand I understand that there may be some defamation issues arising from the release of these videos if what they are implying is false, but on the other you have free speech rights.

We will have to see what comes out of this, but if what this group is implying through these videos is true, they should be allowed to release them. If what they say is propaganda and edited garbage, expect this group to be slapped with some hefty lawsuits, which would be deserved.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: beezzer

I bet you anything that when someone approaches the counter at the pharmacy, they quietly slide the prescription across the counter. Not yell out, "Yeah, i need my herpes ointment and prescriptions hemorrhoid cream refilled again"

Embarassing facts, legal or not, are still embarassing.


That's not a very clear comparison, in my humble.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: butcherguy
If it was filmed in a public venue (a restaurant), the people on the video had no expectation of privacy.


Not true. It depends on the state and the laws about privacy and being recorded in secret.

Check California Penal Code 632c.
link

Under Penal Code § 632(c), "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

They were in a restaurant.
They could expect to be overheard.
Even if they were the only party in the restaurant, there are waitstaff and security cameras.
edit on b000000312015-07-29T20:56:15-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 29 Jul 2015 20:56:15 -0500800000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So that leaves this question... were their conversations really confidential communications?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh it is definitely malicious intent. This group wants to shut down PP because they do the evil (legal) abortions.

There is nothing illegal about donating tissue for medical research, and there is nothing illegal in getting reimbursement for costs involved.


So they have nothing to hide, right? If they've done nothing wrong, why are they trying to silence them?


If someone was accusing you of being a child molester and tried to post false evidence to the public, wouldn't you try to stop them even though you know you are innocent?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
So, we're only for following our laws when we approve of them?

Can't wait to remind some of you "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" authoritarians of that in the future.

Does the State of California not have rights to set laws regarding privacy?

What happened to States Rights? Heck what happened to INDIVIDUAL rights?

Oh wait, that's right ... this is something some of you DISAGREE with ... the rules are different.

Gotcha!


edit on 21Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:04:47 -050015p092015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: EternalSolace

California is a 2 party consent state for recording. Both parties must know about and consent to the recording. In this case I think only one party knew they were being recorded.



Well, we kind of knew that.

I would recommend the next time someone has damning evidence they should just release all of it at once.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Xcathdra

So that leaves this question... were their conversations really confidential communications?


Based on the circumstances (and the way California law is written) I would say they are.
edit on 29-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Why do I have to check it. Grim posted it already and that is the same code number. That is also the law cited for it being used here.

I'm not a lawyer so what do you think I'm going to find that real lawyers and a judge didn't find already?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You didn't include 632c in your post. It is important.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: butcherguy

Why do I have to check it. Grim posted it already and that is the same code number. That is also the law cited for it being used here.

I'm not a lawyer so what do you think I'm going to find that real lawyers and a judge didn't find already?

I posted it above on this page. Read it and tell me it doesn't matter.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I wonder how this would correlate with what you posted:


If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.


Source



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Oh wow... that's why I mentioned on page one that I didn't think there was any reasonable expectation of privacy while out in public. Normally I wouldn't think that confidential conversations would be carried out in a public place like a restaurant.

Good call with the section C of that law!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, I read it.

Just because the business is public access doesn't mean it's public property like a park or outdoor area. It's still private property. So that excludes the "Public Gathering" part of it.

If they agreed to have a private meeting, even in a restaurant it is still a private meeting. Just because there are other people nearby doesn't mean your conversation isn't considered private.

That's what I would guess was used to counter your argument, but then again I'm not a lawyer like I said. Obviously the judge considered it to be private too. All I can do is guess and that's all you can do to. But they got it so what difference does it make now???



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So If I was recording, for example, my child playing in the restaurant, and the camera's microphone caught their conversation, would it still be wrong to document said conversation? Anyone recording for any reason during their talk could have captured their conversation.

That's why I'm under the impression the stipulation about expectation of privacy applies here.
edit on 7/29/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Grimpachi

You didn't include 632c in your post. It is important.


Actually I think A covers it.




632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication
, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio,


Eavesdropping should be aplicable.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
It isn't clear cut, and would be up to a jury to decide.
But you must admit that you probably wouldn't discuss your latest bank robbery in a restaurant that has security cameras.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But .. but ... surely Butcherguy understands California law (not to mention the merits of the case) better than some silly judge, right?

I mean a judge would put their career and credibility on the line just on some whimsical thing, right?

Jeez.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I can see your point too...

This is a treacherous topic that could set long lasting implications. I hope that the judges and potential jurors take this case on with the utmost of seriousness.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join