California Bill Criminalizing Journalists Who Distribute Recordings of Abortion Providers

originally posted by: underwerks
Hmmm. Reminds me of Trump and his whole freedom of the press thing

Funny enough, Breitbarts chairman is also the CEO of Trump's campaign (w/e the hell that is).

a reply to: schuyler

Lol love this.

You all are still stuck on trying to expose what it is really about when all the PP hoopla a few months back was based on deception.
They are preforming abortions for the people that made the choice to do it.

a reply to: Swills
They won't read it. So here's some of what it says.

Existing law makes it a crime, subject to specified exemptions, for a person to intentionally eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication by means of an electronic amplifying or recording device without the consent of all parties to the confidential communication.

It's already against the law to covertly record.

This bill additionally would make it a crime for a person who unlawfully eavesdrops upon or records a confidential communication as described above with a health care provider, as defined, to intentionally disclose or distribute the contents of the confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the confidential communication unless specified conditions are met.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

Looks like everyone is ignoring the without consent part!

You all are crying about freedoms being trampled but I bet you all would be the first to say you don't want to be recorded without your consent either!

The mental gymnastics of it all.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The other day the England manager was recorded talking about dodgy deals in football...

He lost his job.


Sometimes undercover journalism is the best journalism.


That's not to say the CMP's ethics weren't brought into question...

If they lie they should be dealt with.
But to stop any and all undercover reporting lacks the transparency for people to find out if lies are being told in the first place.

It's a slippery slope. & I'm not really a fan of that fallacy.

Did anybody read the law there trying to pass, i am guessing not many, because nobody except 2 posters already proved the op wrong.

More fake outrage by our resident propaganda master.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Sometimes undercover journalism is the best journalism.

You are right and I am not sure that is what this prevents.

I get why you would say it does but the existing law that this adds on to says there are specific conditions where it doesn't apply.

Anyone with a recording device that wants to record your a conversation is not all of the sudden an undercover journalist.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Looks like everyone is ignoring the without consent part!

You all are crying about freedoms being trampled but I bet you all would be the first to say you don't want to be recorded without your consent either!

The mental gymnastics of it all.

But man at work many work places you have no say in it other than to quit if you don't like.

Folks getting tax money........another story because then 1st amendment is about redressing the government and those getting public funding......dumbasses shouldnt have to be asked. Such a low would limit right to redress through obtaining information. They don't like it get off the dole.

a reply to: Logarock

Sorry not sure what you are getting at here.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You are right and I am not sure that is what this prevents.

It does not.

The existing statute.

Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of Section 653m. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, a violation of Section 653m, or any crime in connection therewith.

What the new statute does is prevent people from publicly disseminating the "evidence" they may acquire under the exceptions.

So you have to get consent from the person you are investigating before you can investigate if they are doing anything illegal.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

But to stop any and all undercover reporting lacks the transparency for people to find out if lies are being told in the first place. It's a slippery slope. & I'm not really a fan of that fallacy.

There is nothing slippery about the slope. In California it is a crime (and has been) to covertly record a private conversation.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you have to get consent from the person you are investigating before you can investigate if they are doing anything illegal.

No. You can investigate.
But you can't eavesdrop and you can't record private conversations without the consent of everyone involved (subject to exceptions).

That's just awful, don't you think?

a reply to: Phage

So, other people's conversations?

I agree with that.


But does it apply to conversations one on one that are being recorded?

If this type of "reporting" happened in the business world, which PP is part of, this could be considered industrial espionage. I don't see a problem here.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

As long as the other person agrees to it and it is released from the person who recorded it.

If you are recording without permission for an investigation it is different but releasing to the public is still a no no.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

But does it apply to conversations one on one that are being recorded?

Of course it does.

Existing law makes it a crime, subject to specified exemptions, for a person to intentionally eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication by means of an electronic amplifying or recording device without the consent of all parties to the confidential communication.

You are free to have a conversation. You can even take notes. You cannot record it without consent.
I don't see the reason for outrage here.

a reply to: Phage

They will still ignore it and resort to hyperbole. The link for everyone else not a Breitbart fan :winkyface:

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Healthcare facilities do not equal football coaches. When you're in an sensitive environment that contains patients information confidentiality laws must be enforced. You can't go around secretly recording and releasing the recordings on YouTube without all parties consent. That said, plenty of healthcare facilitates have broken the law and busted by real journalists who did it all legally so they're not worried about Cali's new law I'm sure.

The CMP's malicious propaganda videos proved nothing, who by the way aren't journalist. They are to journalism what FedEx is to the federal gov't. The only thing they accomplished politically are Republican dominated states trying to defund & investigate PP while also enacting new laws to make it harder for women to get an abortion. The entire situation is deplorable that is rooted in lies.

the investigations are still going on...
the republicans in congress can't find anything in one, so they close it up, and start another..

all based on those videos.

which, the fact that they fell for them again is amazing, because the anti-abortionist groups had pulled the same stunt before, which, after investigations were found to be unfounded!