quote:

On the record before me, balancing the significant interests as stake on both sides supports enforcement of the confidentiality agreements at this juncture. As the Supreme Court recognized in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 672 (1991), “the First Amendment does not confer on the press a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law.” Id. at 672. “‘[T]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others.’” Id. at 7670 (quoting Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (1937)); see also Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir. 1971) (“The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office. It does not become such a license simply because the person subjected to the intrusion is reasonably suspected of committing a crime.”).

quote:

Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (1971)

Knox Graham

Basic Facts:

The case of Dietemann v Time is a case of invasion of privacy. Life magazine was doing an investigation for their magazine on supposed “quack doctors” that were practicing medicine illegally. The investigator would pretend to be a patient and then go into the alleged doctors office undercover with audio and camera equipment hidden. This would record evidence that showed the doctors were in fact not licensed physicians and then they would write about it.

Dietemann was one of these doctors that practiced medicine in the den of his home. An undercover patient went into his home and was hooked up with audio that was being transmitted to a police car outside the home. This foiled his operation and he was ousted as a fraud.

Question:

Does someone have a right to an expected place of solitude where no one will unlawfully invade their space to gather info or other material against their will? Did Time invade his space?

Decision:

He sued Life magazine saying that the hidden electronics were an invasion of his privacy.

The court did not agree that hidden mechanical devices were “indispensible tools” of newsgathering here even though the 1st Amendment covers news gathering. The Court came to the conclusion that “The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office.”

Ruling:

Dietemann won the case on electronic intrusion and was awarded $1000. His den was an expected place of solitude.

The Dietemann Decision modified the concept of freedom of press in two ways.

1) “The First Amendment gives the media no right to break the law with impunity, even if

legitimate news is being pursued”.

2) Reporters are not protected by the First Amendment when they commit crimes or torts.

quote:

There have been dozens of undercover employment-based investigations of the meat, dairy, and egg industries by animal protection groups in the past 15 years. These investigations have led to felony conviction for egregious cruelty to animals, the country's largest meat recall, and a civil settlement of $497 million.

They have also led to improved conditions for farm animals, laws against certain confinement systems in nine states, and corporate farm animal welfare policies from most of the country's largest fast food restaurants, grocery chains, and meat companies, from McDonald's and Burger King to Smithfield Foods and Hormel.

In 2011, the meat industry responded, but not by improving conditions for farm animals; instead, it proposed laws in four states to prohibit the investigations. In 2012, pro-factory farm legislators enacted three such laws, and last year, they proposed eleven more. This year, they have proposed half a dozen, and passed one.

Animal protection, consumer safety, and free speech advocates are fighting back. In March, a coalition of groups and individuals led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and ACLU of Idaho filed a lawsuit against the state of Idaho to overturn its version of these anti-American and unconstitutional laws. This suit puts other states on notice: If you pass an ag-gag law, expect to defend it in federal court.

The constitutional case is simple: The laws violate at least three separate Constitutional requirements.

First, the government can't restrict speech based on its content.

[the second one deals with the relationship between the state and federal govt and isn't applicable]

Third, states cannot pass laws that target classes of citizens based on animus or hostility....

As the editorial page editor of the largest daily paper in Wyoming put it, "Criminalizing undercover investigations at such farm operations would effectively tell the owners that they can do anything they want to their livestock."

Ag-gag laws violate the will of the American people, and they contradict American values as enshrined in our Constitution.

quote:

Project Veritas' hidden camera method of documenting abuse of power, arrogance of government officials, and corruption was validated in a recent court decision which says, in part, "Audio and visual evidence is a uniquely persuasive means of conveying a message, and it can vindicate an undercover investigator or whistleblower who is otherwise disbelieved or ignored.”

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the lies used to facilitate undercover investigations actually advance core First Amendment values by exposing misconduct to the public eye and facilitating dialogue on issues of considerable public interest. This type of politically salient speech is precisely the type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

why dont you read above that and below that part
then maybe you will just simply be completely at a loss.


Edited to add, with only half my tongue in my cheek.

Id love to see all "secrecy" agreements being dissolved from now on.....
if that is the case
Im sure journalists(not CMP) would be over the freakin moon

i read the entire injunction.

I might be missing some humor there---are you suggesting you know the answer?

what part of

quote:

(paraphrasing) willfully fraudulently criminally setting up a pretend corporation,pretend identities, and then not reading or willfully ignoring a secrecy document (Fraudulently) , covering not only paperwork and pictures, but video and audio(fraudulently),

dont you get?

I neither have the time or the patience to ring up the correct page right now, however it IS explained in the injunction.
It was also explained to the grand jury...remember???
Oh and the time that thing came up about pleading the fifth for Biomax and CMP???
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/09/18/federal-court-rules-center-medical-progress-biomax-cant-plead-fifth/

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And who should that be remarkable to, that you are at a loss. I don't guess than anyone here would find it so.

why comrade nutsucker, so you claim to have a handle on the question.

looking forward to the full explanation.

or your looking like a fool saying you could explain it, but that you just don't want to...im okay either way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Good post. Not the final word, but at least you can now say, according to one judge its misleadingly edited.


Of course, this was the same judge that blocked the original release of the videos.

Father was a liberal judge under Kennedy,
He raised 200,000+ for barack Obama, and as part of the quid pro quo was appointed by obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

why dont you read above that and below that part
then maybe you will just simply be completely at a loss.


Edited to add, with only half my tongue in my cheek.

Id love to see all "secrecy" agreements being dissolved from now on.....
if that is the case
Im sure journalists(not CMP) would be over the freakin moon

i read the entire injunction.

I might be missing some humor there---are you suggesting you know the answer?

what part of

quote:

(paraphrasing) willfully fraudulently criminally setting up a pretend corporation,pretend identities, and then not reading or willfully ignoring a secrecy document (Fraudulently) , covering not only paperwork and pictures, but video and audio(fraudulently),

dont you get?

I neither have the time or the patience to ring up the correct page right now, however it IS explained in the injunction.
It was also explained to the grand jury...remember???
Oh and the time that thing came up about pleading the fifth for Biomax and CMP???
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/09/18/federal-court-rules-center-medical-progress-biomax-cant-plead-fifth/

Lets deflate some of this hyperbole.

The defendents willfully set up a corporation. Yep. They also willfully breath. Lot of words - adds nothing.
Fraudulently setup a corporation. No they set up the corporation pretty straighforwardly, using the online website.

They setup the corporation to look like a biotech company. Do you think if they name it "shell company to investigate planned parenthood" pp might have been tipped off.

The fact of the matter is that its perfectly legal to set up a dbA or a corporation with miniminal information. Calling people officers of that corporation is also not fraudulent.

So, sparing the big words what you really have CMP set up a fake company, got fake ids, and tried to video PP doing nefarious things.

Which is something investigative journalism does all the time.

Do you suppose Elizabeth Cochrane (Nellie Bly) should be prosecuted for being admitted to a mental institution under a false name? For receiving govt. treatment whilst ineligible?


Chris Terrill? Peter Warren? Anas Anas, John Griffin? Jon MacIntyre? Gunter Wllraff? Tim Lopes,
Antonio Salas? Alison Braund?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Moreover, a report submitted by NAF of an analysis of many of the “highlight” and “full” videos released by CMP concluded that the “curated” or highlight Project videos were “misleading” and suggests that the “full” videos defendants released along with their “highlights” were also edited. Pl. Ex. 77. Defendants do not counter this evidence, other than pointing to Daleiden’s assertion that the highlight videos were accompanied by the release of the “full” recordings.

if that is true, that's somewhat damning.

quote:

Forensic analysis confirms Planned Parenthood videos were not manipulated

As Planned Parenthood’s CEO Cecile Richards began answering questions before the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, she claimed once again that undercover videos released by The Center for Medical Progress exposing Planned Parenthood’s participation in the harvesting of fetal body parts for profit were “deceptively edited” and “highly doctored.”

And yet, Fox News points out, “just minutes before the hearing started, a forensic analysis said the videos ‘are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.'”

A question looming over the hearing was whether any of the footage was in fact altered. Democrats repeatedly suggested that important passages were missing.

But the Alliance Defending Freedom engaged cybersecurity and forensic analysis company Coalfire Systems to examine the 10 “full-footage videos” put out by CMP.

According to their review, the videos were not manipulated. The report said any missing footage was of “non-pertinent” events like meals and bathroom breaks...

Despite this, Cecile Richards and her Planned Parenthood-supporting friends on Capitol Hill continued to claim that the videos were manipulated. Enter the Coalfire forensic analysis. Fox again writes:

quote:

“The Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by Center for Medical Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated,” ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox said in a statement.

“Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation and released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed. Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appear to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

since you blithely continue to ignore the content of posts, and instead choose to peddle juvenile tripe, and seemingly cannot string together a rational, coherent, argument, one could actually, and very accurately, say the same about your posts.