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: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

632c excludes what 632 a sets out if in a public setting where privacy can not be expected.




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

Stuff like that happens all the time. People get recorded somehow but when taken to trial it get's thrown out because it's not allowed.

True or not, if evidence isn't legally obtained it's not allowed as evidence in court.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So you are saying that they were eating in a private restaurant that is not open to the public, has no waitstaff or security cameras?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace
Just another attempt by an anti-abortion group to whip up the masses to regulate a woman's body and what she can and can not do with it.

Wouldn't be surprised if video was slanted, one-sided and the conversation was completely out of context just to support some inane christian point of view.

What's wrong with using tissue that would normally be discarded as waste to advance science. Being compensated for your time and effort preserving the tissue is normal.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: butcherguy

Stuff like that happens all the time. People get recorded somehow but when taken to trial it get's thrown out because it's not allowed.

True or not, if evidence isn't legally obtained it's not allowed as evidence in court.

Is there a trial going on that I missed?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

It appears to me that it would depend on what you did with the recording. If you posted it to FB to show off the kids playing with no emphasis on the side conversation, you should be ok.

If you made the recording public and emphasized the side conversation and included the names/occupations of the people, you may run in to some issues. Defamation and wiretapping laws may come in to play.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Obviously a judge who must be acquainted with the full law disagrees with you.

Are you claiming the judge is wrong?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Public gathering refers to, if I'm not mistaken, something like a political gathering at which speeches are given, etc.

Notice the context.

You know, perhaps the judge in this case actually reviewed the facts of the matter before issuing their ruling ... instead of just playing a lawyer on TV ... I mean the internet.

Could be.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
in the third video, the part where the employee of stem express is talking, it's in an office area, not a resturant and I do believe that is was stem express and what I think are some of their employees that are listed as the plantiffs.
although it's possible that the judge is also looking into the taped interviews with the planned parenthood personnel also since it's believed that at least one of those was also taped in california.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
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.


Depending on the circumstances, it may fall upon the jurisdiction of a judge to decide to stop a person or group from releasing information before a jury can be assembled to decide on any case brought before the court. It's called an injunction.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

Obviously a judge who must be acquainted with the full law disagrees with you.

Are you claiming the judge is wrong?

A temporary injunction.
Temporary.
It isn't finished. It grants temporary relief until a decision can be reached.
And yes, judges can be wrong.
9 SCOTUS justices were very wrong on the Dredd Scott decision, IMHO.
Or do you think that they were right?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Then I bow to your expert legal knowledge.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

no we skipped that part and went straight to defunding and public execution.

while researching the first time that this group made this accusation and congress investigated it I do believe I read that the so called website they used when they presented their evidence to congress was fake and put on the internet by them... I'd probably have to do alot of backtracking to find it and even then who knows if it's true or not but well, if it is, well.... I hope they get nailed this time!


edit on 29-7-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Is that red herring I smell?

I'm wondering as well, is it illegal, let's just say in California, to masquerade as a medical professional or researcher ... if one isn't?

I mean, besides the fact that it's a lie and dishonest ... and caught on tape ... what's the limit on fraudulent identity in a business proposition in CA? Anyone know?
edit on 21Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:22:13 -050015p092015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

No, I'm saying that just because you are in a restaurant doesn't automatically mean you can be secretly recorded without your knowledge. The conversation you're having can still be considered private in that setting. Just because you aren't locked in a vault somewhere with sound canceling technology doesn't mean you've given up the right to not be recorded without your knowledge.

What does it matter now anyway. If you think it's wrong go fight the court about it. Otherwise it's done now so what can either of us do about it. Obviously if there was some way to not have this happen it would have been said in court. So either that didn't happen or the reason wasn't good enough.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I was speaking to the point of the OP. A temporary order was issued by a court to stop any release until the facts can be argued by both sides at length.
There is no trial regarding this matter currently.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

No, I am stating my opinoon, just like you are expressing yours.
I however, will not tell you to 'go to court to fight about it'.
I feel that you are welcome to state your opinion, and no matter how much you try to convince me that everyone isn't entitled to the same, I am not coming over to your dark side, where only certain people can have a voice.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Why not discuss the fact that even though there has still been no proof of a crime committed these video's are being used as propaganda to now defund Planned Parenthood. They are being released and reported as fact throughout the Right Wing Media Networks even though they have been shown to be edited and taken out of context and now possibly even recorded illegally yet it's still being used to justify defunding planned parenthood.

Or how about the fact that the head of the organization that made these "citizen journalist" secret video's also happens to be a long time Conservative Activist with ties to other known Conservative activists and propagandists as well. Might there be a conflict of interest here??? Maybe some bias and agenda that is being pushed by promoting lies upon the people???? Ya think????



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
That has been discussed ad nauseum in the several threads about the videos themselves.
Don't you agree?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Grimpachi

632c excludes what 632 a sets out if in a public setting where privacy can not be expected.


I'm trying to find the particular case, but a case previously litigated specifically addressed this issue in regards to public places and reasonable expectation.

As with any law or regulation, it is never as cut and dry as we would expect it to be.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join