Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
Federal Court Affirms That Deceptively Edited Anti-Choice Videos Are Fraudulent And Not Journalism
CMP Videos "Have Not Been Pieces Of Journalistic Integrity" But Instead Are "Misleadingly Edited Videos And Unfounded Assertions"
On February 5, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) barring founder David Daleiden and alleged co-conspirators from releasing any of the deceptively edited footage they obtained under false pretenses during National Abortion Federation (NAF) events. As explained by the judge, CMP's fraudulent videos were not journalism and the value of their release did not outweigh the very real anti-choice violence they could incite.
Following Daleiden's January 25 indictment by a Houston grand jury, right-wing media have rushed to defend CMP's smear campaign against NAF and Planned Parenthood by arguing the deceptively edited videos show evidence of wrongdoing and constitute an act of journalism protected by the First Amendment.
In awarding NAF a primary injunction, federal judge William H. Orrick thoroughly refuted these claims.
Joining a chorus of investigations clearing Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing, Judge Orrick wrote that after a complete review "of the records or transcripts in full and in context, I find no NAF attendees admitted to engaging in, agreeing to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit."
Judge Orrick also refuted the unconvincing argument that Daleiden is an investigative journalist. Judge Orrick wrote that CMP did not "-- as Daleiden repeatedly asserts -- use widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques" and that they had "no evidence to support that assertion and no cases on point." Instead, Judge Orrick argued that videos resulting from CMP's work "thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions...of criminal misconduct."
Judge Orrick also directly referenced the uptick in anti-choice violence and harassment since the release of the videos, noting "t is not speculative to expect that harassment, threats, and violent acts will continue to rise if defendants were to release NAF materials
link to full 42 page Order
From page 11
Ive removed docket numbers and evidence numbers simply because its confusing, but thats all I have removed.
Defendants are CMP and Plaintiffs are NAF
Defendants argue that they captured NAF attendees agreeing to explore, or at least expressing interest in exploring, being compensated for the sale of fetal tissue at a profit, which defendants contend is illegal under state and federal laws. Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
However, they tend to misstate the conversations that occurred or omit the context of those statements. For example, defendants rely on a conversation with a clinic owner where Daleiden suggests BioMax could pay $60 per sample instead of $50 per sample. The clinic owner doesn’t respond to that suggestion, or give any indication about the actual costs to the clinic of facilitating outside companies to come in and collect fetal tissue.
Instead, the clinic owner responds that providing tissue to outside companies “is a nice way to get extra income in a very difficult time, and you know patients like it.” Defendants point to another conversation where a provider asks what the “reimbursement rate” is for the clinic, and was told “it varies” by Tennenbaum.
Then, in response to Tennenbaum’s suggestion about whether she’d “be open to maybe being a little creative in the procedure,” the provider responds that she was not sure and would have to discuss it and run it by the doctors.
Tennenbaum explains that specimens “go for” anywhere from “500 up to 2,000” and so “you can see how profitable” it would be for clinics, to which the provider says “Yeah, absolutely” and a different provider says “that would be great” in response to comments about having further discussions.
Another provider responded to defendants’ suggestion of financial incentives by indicating that the clinic would be “very happy about it,” but admitted others would have to approve it and it wasn’t up to her.
Defendants point to a conversation with a provider who discusses the “fine line” between an illegal partial birth abortion and the types of abortion that they perform, and the techniques that they employ to ensure that they do not cross that line.
That conversation, however, does not indicate that any illegal activity was occurring. Similarly, defendants contend that a provider stated that he ordinarily minimizes dilation, since that is what is safest for the women, but that if he had a reason to dilate more (such as tissue procurement), he might perform abortions differently.
But that is not what the provider said. After acknowledging tissue donation was not allowed in his state, he stated that “I could mop up my technique if you wanted something more intact. But right now my only concern is the safety of the woman” and there was no reason to further dilate a woman.
< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 2/11/2016 9:40:34 AM >
_____________________________
(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \
\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \
(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \
Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love
|
CMP Videos "Have Not Been Pieces Of Journalistic I... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread