JoltinJoe wrote:kalm wrote:
So you have nothing then...
Gosh Joe, I assume you are a smart individual and it always saddens me when you go the directional school route. I say always because this isn't the first time you've gone there when challenged on a legitimate point.
I truly hope you're just joking here. Not for my sake, but for yours.
You see, in my world and for that matter the Internet, no one really gives a **** where you went to school. You are judged by your actions and your words.
I asked you an honest question and followed up with an honest request. You've chosen to run away from both.
EWU 35 FU 0.
Look, you said post from a reputable source about what was said in the videos.
I said go watch them yourself.
If you don't grasp that what the PP reps are saying, when they say PP is "limited to costs" and that this cannot be a "revenue stream" for PP is that "wink, wink, nod, nod, we have to call what you pay 'costs,'" or "our lawyers and accountants are very creative on what constitutes costs," then you are really not paying attention.
Frankly, it amazes me that some so-called "reputable" news agencies are taking these quotes out-of-context and calling them exculpatory.
I watched the first two entire videos because the NY Times ran an editorial saying the highlight videos were "heavily edited" and took quotes out of context. But it turns out it was the Times that took comments out of context.
BTW, when are your "reputable" news outlets going to report on the highly suspect prior restraints issued by two very sad judges? Shouldn't the public know that, in order to protect PP, two judges have violated the First Amendment and barred the Center from Medical Progress from publishing other tapes (including one in which someone speaks about the delivery of intact, later-term aborted fetuses)??
According to the U.S Supreme Court’s 1976 opinion in
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the court considers prior restraints on speech as “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Where is the NY Times -- the beneficiary of the most famous prior restraint ruling of all time -- on this story? Where is its outrage of these illegal prior restraints?
Or where is other main-stream media? Google Planned Parenthood Injunction -- see who has reported about these injunctions, and who has not.
Then let's talk about who is a reputable source.
Joe,
I'm not interested in watching the 150 minutes of video for the first one especially since the most damning evidence against PP has been published. That evidence simply does not support your assertion that this practice is a revenue stream. $30-$100 is a reasonable fee to recoup lab and shipping costs. And as the PP rep states, if a few clinics exceed the actual costs, they are still a non-profit and that money simply goes to more services probably like birth control that, you know, decrease the amount of abortions.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspin ... ood-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you want even more info on the veracity of the videos (albeit from a liberal source), Media Matters has done a lengthy summary of how the video was edited including the timestamp jumps.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... its/204419" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Regarding the injunction, the Wa Post, LA times, AP, among others have reported on it.
Now, I'm NOT a lawyer, but this guy is and while he sees your argument, it appears the 1st amendment charge isn't the slam dunk you are claiming:
2. But First Amendment rights can be waived by contract, even when it comes to matters of public concern (Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991)). State law might sometimes render some such contracts unenforceable, but First Amendment law generally doesn’t disturb them, and these sorts of nondisclosure agreements are routinely enforced. And pretrial injunctions against the breach of such contracts are likely constitutional, too. Moreover, contract law is generally viewed as a content-neutral basis for restricting speech, as opposed to content-based restrictions such as libel law or obscenity law. Content-neutral posttrial permanent injunctions are subject to lower First Amendment scrutiny than content-based ones, see Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994), and content-neutral pretrial injunctions might likewise be viewed as subject to lower First Amendment scrutiny.
3. What about § 632? As I discussed in the previous post, it might be constitutional for courts to issue pretrial orders barring the publication of material recorded in violation of § 632, even if there’s no nondisclosure agreement involved. But here, I’m skeptical that § 632 would apply.
Most states allow the surreptitious recording of a conversation so long as one party consents to the recording. In some states, though, including California, such secret recording of “confidential communications” is generally illegal unless all parties to the conversation consent, see Cal. Penal Code § 632. “[A] conversation is confidential,” and thus may not be recorded without consent, “if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded.” A conversation can be confidential even if it is in a public place, but only so long as the parties reasonably expect that the conversation isn’t being overheard or recorded.
My guess — and to my knowledge there’s no California caselaw on this — is that many conversations at a busy conference would not be treated as “confidential,” even if everyone has signed nondisclosure agreements. Though the attendees might not expect that they will be recorded (indeed, most of us rarely expect that we’ll be recorded, except in specific public places), they probably would realize that their conversations might well be overheard. Some specific conversations, carried on in hushed tones in secluded areas of the conference, might be covered by § 632; but other conversations, for instance at an exhibitor booth when others are routinely walking by, likely aren’t.
Still, I don’t think the federation needs to win on the § 632 claim, assuming the contractual provisions are as they say — the breach of contract claim, and the request for a pretrial injunction to prevent further breach, would be pretty strong (though subject to the uncertain prior restraint objection, which would equally apply as to the § 632 claim).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... onference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Joe, before you accuse someone else of being lazy, check yourself. The ability to spout case law off the top of your head does not trump common sense. Signing a non-disclosure contract and surreptitious recordings are shaky ground.
You're welcome for the leg work.
