Planned Parenthood exonerated. Videographers indicted.

[Ken Brown]

If they lied and attempted to get action taken against PP based on a lie, they should be prosecuted.

Shalom Again 4consideration, would you consider their "lie" along that same lines as NBC's Dateline "Catch a Predator Series" use of lies? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ken Brown]

They edited video footage to make it appear that PP was engaging in illegal activity.

Shalom Mestemia, and they are charged or indicted for "editing video footage?" Do you have a link that shows "editing video footage" to be part of the charges against them? Are you sure you have your facts straight? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[freethinker44]

In most states, don't know about all, it is illegal to record someone without their consent, especially with the intent of using that secret recording to embarrass or otherwise harm the individual or organization (the defamation angle you mentioned). Things like general security recordings are okay, but hidden microphones and cameras during what are otherwise private conversations are usually not (although there are some exceptions for employers in monitoring the behavior of employees). Police, etc., must get warrants, and news organizations are always dancing a fine line when they do such things.

I don't know, I feel like even a halfway decent lawyer can get them out of it. Texas is a one party consent state, so as long as one person in the conversation consents to video and/or voice recording then everyone consents, and no consent is needed from anyone in any public place. So that's a pretty big hurdle the prosecutor has to overcome to make his case. I still think it's a waste of money. Also, whether they found anything meaningful or not, I think they should be protected as whistleblowers. I don't like cases like this. I worry about if the defendants lose it could be used as precedent to charge anyone that gathers or attempts to gather damaging evidence against a public or private entity.

 

[freethinker44]

It isn't up for debate.
It is legal to sell biomedical garbage.
Even body parts and fetuses.
Though there are some rules, conditions, etc.

I don't know about body parts in general, but you can't sell a fetus. You can transfer it and charge fees to cover the cost of transferring it, but you can't profit from it. It's probably just semantics though, I'm assuming you knew that.

 

[columbus]

Also, whether they found anything meaningful or not, I think they should be protected as whistleblowers. I don't like cases like this. I worry about if the defendants lose it could be used as precedent to charge anyone that gathers or attempts to gather damaging evidence against a public or private entity.

Oh great.
The nuance hits the fan, in Texas no less.

I'd rather argue about Nazis and feel smugly superior.

Tom

 

[freethinker44]

Oh great.
The nuance hits the fan, in Texas no less.

I'd rather argue about Nazis and feel smugly superior.

Tom

I guess we could find a way to fit Nazis in the argument, but I feel smugly superior all the time, what would I get out of it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Shalom Mestemia, and they are charged or indicted for "editing video footage?" Do you have a link that shows "editing video footage" to be part of the charges against them? Are you sure you have your facts straight? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Google is your friend.

From NY Times, already in August. It took until now for the counter suit to take effect, I guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0

Planned Parenthood denies the charges and says that the videos were deceptively and misleadingly edited.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A Texas (Texas!) court has found the charges of PP selling baby parts scurrilous and, in a startling reversal, indicted their accusers.

Easily the best piece of news coming out of Texas in a long, long time.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't know, I feel like even a halfway decent lawyer can get them out of it. Texas is a one party consent state, so as long as one person in the conversation consents to video and/or voice recording then everyone consents, and no consent is needed from anyone in any public place. So that's a pretty big hurdle the prosecutor has to overcome to make his case. I still think it's a waste of money. Also, whether they found anything meaningful or not, I think they should be protected as whistleblowers. I don't like cases like this. I worry about if the defendants lose it could be used as precedent to charge anyone that gathers or attempts to gather damaging evidence against a public or private entity.

Didn't know that about Texas. So, if I'm in Texas and want to record all my meetings and dealing with everyone else and I approve of secretly recording, then it's okay? Or if I have a friend along who agrees, but we don't ask anyone else? That seems...well, destined to invade someone's right to privacy--or no such right exists. I'm not really familiar with Texas law, but in many cases, no matter how clear the law seems to be, with enough money and enough lawyers, people can get out of charges--for example, the "affluenza" kid....

But if they were whistleblowers, they would have reported it to the proper authorities and let them handle it, rather than the media.

 

[Ken Brown]

Google is your friend.

From NY Times, already in August. It took until now for the counter suit to take effect, I guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0

Shalom Ouroboros, I'm sorry that you probably didn't understand my question to Mestemia, so I will restate my question, as one of the points in this thread is about the Videographers being indicted:

Shalom Mestemia, and they are charged or indicted for "editing video footage?" Do you have a link that shows "editing video footage" to be part of the charges against them? Are you sure you have your facts straight? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Hopefully Ouroboros, you can use Google and FIND the charge in the indictment that has the Videographers being charged or indicted with "editing video footage," as you and Mestemia have insinuated is there. Have you even looked into or Googled the charge against them that created the indictment? I can assure you, it is NOT a charge or indictment against them for "editing a video." But who knows, maybe some cockeyed lawyer will try to get them charged with that also, but right now, they are not. What they did is what NBC Dateline did with their Predator seriers, they lied about who they were, and that is the charge against them. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ouroboros]

Shalom Ouroboros, I'm sorry that you probably didn't understand my question to Mestemia, so I will restate my question, as one of the points in this thread is about the Videographers being indicted:

Shalom Mestemia, and they are charged or indicted for "editing video footage?" Do you have a link that shows "editing video footage" to be part of the charges against them? Are you sure you have your facts straight? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Hopefully Ouroboros, you can use Google and FIND the charge in the indictment that has the Videographers being charged or indicted with "editing video footage," as you and Mestemia have insinuated is there. Have you even looked into or Googled the charge against them that created the indictment? I can assure you, it is NOT a charge or indictment against them for "editing a video." But who knows, maybe some cockeyed lawyer will try to get them charged with that also, but right now, they are not. What they did is what NBC Dateline did with their Predator seriers, they lied about who they were, and that is the charge against them. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

They've been charged with tampering.

 

[Ken Brown]

They've been charged with tampering.

Shalom Ouroboros, why don't you explain that "tampering" charge/indictment. A quote from Google would suffice. And keep in mind, was it a "tampering" charge with "editing a video" or with changing or lying about their identity? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ouroboros]

Shalom Ouroboros, why don't you explain that "tampering" charge/indictment. A quote from Google would suffice. And keep in mind, was it a "tampering" charge with "editing a video" or with changing or lying about their identity? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Tampering means that someone has changed something.

 

[Ken Brown]

Tampering means that someone has changed something.

Shalom Ouroboros, I didn't ask you what tampering means, did I? I asked you what the "tampering" charge was based upon. Are you unfamiliar with that "tampering" charge. If so, just admit it, and move on, otherwise, please explain to us the "tampering" charge? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Valjean]

If you do enough interviews, with enough different Planned Parenthood representatives, with some clever psychological manipulation, you're eventually going to get some compromising footage that you can splice together to create the desired impression. This was a witch hunt from the beginning, with the ultimate goal being to overturn Roe v Wade.

As for nazis, the nazis murdered people. The question here is weather a foetus has the necessary characteristics to qualify for personhood.

 

[Ouroboros]

Shalom Ouroboros, I didn't ask you what tampering means, did I? I asked you what the "tampering" charge was based upon. Are you unfamiliar with that "tampering" charge. If so, just admit it, and move on, otherwise, please explain to us the "tampering" charge? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I see what you're saying. They were charged with tampering with their driving license, not the video.

 

[Ken Brown]

I see what you're saying. They were charged with tampering with their driving license, not the video.

Shalom Ouroboros, thank you. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[McBell]

Shalom Mestemia, and they are charged or indicted for "editing video footage?" Do you have a link that shows "editing video footage" to be part of the charges against them? Are you sure you have your facts straight? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

The link in the OP....
You might want to read it.

 

[McBell]

I don't know about body parts in general, but you can't sell a fetus. You can transfer it and charge fees to cover the cost of transferring it, but you can't profit from it. It's probably just semantics though, I'm assuming you knew that.

Hence the "Though there are some rules, conditions, etc."....

I wonder why (and I am not saying you re one( so many people assume "sell" means "profit"....

 

[McBell]

I don't know, I feel like even a halfway decent lawyer can get them out of it. Texas is a one party consent state, so as long as one person in the conversation consents to video and/or voice recording then everyone consents, and no consent is needed from anyone in any public place. So that's a pretty big hurdle the prosecutor has to overcome to make his case.

No, it isn't.
Why?
Because they are not being indicted for gathering the video.
They are being indicted for editing the video to make it appear that PP is doing something they did not do.

I still think it's a waste of money.

I don't.
If they tampered with the video "evidence" they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law then drawn and quartered.

Also, whether they found anything meaningful or not, I think they should be protected as whistleblowers.

Hell no.
They are not "whistle blowers".
They are liars.
Whistle blowers expose the truth.
Since they had to edit their gathered video to create the "evidence" used to take PP to court to begin with.

These two have hurt whisle blowers by undermining what whistle blowing actually is.

I don't like cases like this. I worry about if the defendants lose it could be used as precedent to charge anyone that gathers or attempts to gather damaging evidence against a public or private entity.

There is a HUGE difference between gathering evidence and fabricating evidence.
If these two are not prosecuted it can lead to any one making up any thing they like and accusing anyone of it with no fear of consequences.