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: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

So's the right to privacy ...

/shrug




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Being in public having a conversation is like posting to Facebook, is the content on Facebook private or public?

Plus don't they have both the shortened AND the full length videos available?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
... and committing fraud is like, well, committing fraud.

I love how rapidly some adopt situational ethics and relativism when it suits their agenda.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I found the court complaint that was filed posted online:

popehat.com...

guess I was wrong about it not being in a resturant after all...

but it should give us a better idea of what is going on.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Free Speech

The first amendment does not protect you if you are spreading lies. That is called libel. This anti-abortion group has released three videos that they edited to make it look like PP was selling fetuses for profit instead of shipping and handleing. They were lieing, so the courts put a muzzle on them. The courts are not suppressing the truth, they are suppressing these fanatics lies. There is no new precedent being set. They are stopping them from spreading more lies. What the group was doing is illegal. You cannot edit videos to tell the story you want to tell. If that story is a lie.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

The first amendment does not protect you if you are spreading lies.


Sometimes it does.

Sometimes remedies conflict.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So lies are okay with you then?

With all respect, can't say that I'm surprised.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EternalSolace

So, do you think its ok to tape someone without their consent? Would doing so be libel?

No actually, it is not Libel. The only way that anything could be libelous is if it was not true.


What if someone sitting nearby recorded a conversation between you and another person where you discussed embarassing (but legal) facts about yourself. Would it be ok to play that at the next company picnic?

Eavesdropping is a crime however if you are recording your own conversation and publishing it, there should be no legal restrictions.
edit on 30-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Right, the makers of the video are claiming something illegal is taking place and have edited the videos intentionally to make it appear so.

When, in fact, nothing illegal is happening.

You can't just chop up a conversation and piece it together in a way you like so that you can make false claims of illegal activity.

I agree and would like to add that our media does this without recourse and with impunity every day. If we are going to enforce the issue on moral/legal grounds, lets enforce it even-handedly.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I believe "prior restraint" was decided unconstutional in lawsuit dealing with release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsworth back in the seventies.

My question is, what jurisdiction is covered anyways? LA county, South Cali, California?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

That's what I'd like to know as well... The scope of the restraining order. Some others have mentioned that they could just kick these videos out to a msm news source and let them run with the video. I'm curious as to whether the court would try to silence msm.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I believe "prior restraint" was decided unconstutional in lawsuit dealing with release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsworth back in the seventies.

My question is, what jurisdiction is covered anyways? LA county, South Cali, California?



I'm not an attorney, but I believe this is more complicated that a simple first amendment issue, having to do with unlawfully obtained . And it's temporary.

As to the jurisdiction, sounds to me like they are full stop not allowed to release videos with specific individuals in them.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The group released the video Thursday in spite of the court order...

I don't believe this is going to turn out well.



The video’s release by the Center for Medical Progress comes a day after CMP was issued a restraining order preventing it from issuing any new footage of a group that worked with Planned Parenthood, StemExpress. But Thursday’s material focuses almost entirely on a woman identified as Dr. Savita Ginde, the vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.


Call it 'research,' not 'business,' Planned Parenthood doc says in latest sting video

I'm keeping an eye out for what the court does, not only to CMP, but to any msm source showing the latest video.
edit on 7/30/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Didn't they do the same thing with that old "racist" NBA owner?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I don't think an LA county judge has any authority elsewhere.

The Ellsworth case was about illegally obtained documents released by third party - pretty much the case here too.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I don't think an LA county judge has any authority elsewhere.

The Ellsworth case was about illegally obtained documents released by third party - pretty much the case here too.


I think you'll find that the California Attorney General and the US Department of Justice have wider-ranging jurisdictions.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I guess you'd have to make a Constitutional distinction between legitimate media interests (freedom of the press) and a sham corporation set up to do nothing more than commit fraud and misrepresentation (illegal in about 20 different ways).



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

So lies are okay with you then?

With all respect, can't say that I'm surprised.
:lol;

No. You are on a tangent binge again I see.


But the 1st allows "lying".

Some laws however will allow prosecution of lies.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: notmyrealname

I guess you'd have to make a Constitutional distinction between legitimate media interests (freedom of the press) and a sham corporation set up to do nothing more than commit fraud and misrepresentation (illegal in about 20 different ways).


Well, if you think the law should be applied in a manner that is interpreted by "legitimacy" of the party' then the whole concept of the 'law' would be a sham.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: notmyrealname

I guess you'd have to make a Constitutional distinction between legitimate media interests (freedom of the press) and a sham corporation set up to do nothing more than commit fraud and misrepresentation (illegal in about 20 different ways).


Well, if you think the law should be applied in a manner that is interpreted by "legitimacy" of the party' then the whole concept of the 'law' would be a sham.


In my opinion that is a grossly generalizing empty-of-real content statement.

Parties are either legitimate or they aren't. I'm not sure what system of law you're referring to that doesn't consider the legitimacy of parties involved ... oh wait, you're talking about your opinion, not facts.

My bad. Carry on!




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join