Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Court blocks pro-life group from releasing new fetal body part videos
Life Site ^ | July 29, 2015 | John Jalsevac

Posted on 07/29/2015 7:13:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: okie01
"The order also refers only to footage of Stem Express employees."

Ah… Thank you for the clarification.

41 posted on 07/29/2015 8:32:30 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Well said and correct.


42 posted on 07/29/2015 8:39:40 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If we decide to ignore the law, we’re no better than illegal aliens, Obama and Democrats.


43 posted on 07/29/2015 8:40:38 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa

[[In a statement released today, GenocideExpress stated that they sought the restraining order “on the grounds that CMP and Daleiden violated [the 3rd Reich’s] anti-wiretapping law under Penal Code § 632 (Invasion of Privacy Act).”]]

They didn’t wiretap anyone, they videotaped them-


44 posted on 07/29/2015 8:53:11 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

[[I’m all for CMP recording these undercover videos but I have always struggled to understand the privacy laws in connection with recording.]]

not a lawyer, but in some states you don’t even need consent by other party to tape their conversations over the phone- it’s of course different from one state to another- not sure what cali law are- being a liberal law, I woulda thought NOone had a right to privacy- but I am probably mistaken


45 posted on 07/29/2015 8:55:10 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
How is it then that CMP can tape these videos without legal consequence?

Depends on state law. In New York State, for example, as long as one of the parties consents—and it can be the one making the recording—even a private conversation such as a telephone call can be recorded within the law. It's eavesdropping that's prohibited.

In more public places, as someone pointed out, the reasonable expectation of privacy is even less. But other states are more stringent. My observation is that the more conservative states are more careful to protect privacy.

46 posted on 07/29/2015 8:56:19 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: piasa

I may be mistaken, but I believe it was califoenication that just ruled that a photographer was fully within their rights to take photos of people inside their homes, through their windows, and to display those photos in public- Maybe it was another state- can’t remember now- but I think it was cali

it appears California is a ‘two party consent’ state- so shows like the msnbc one would not be allowed to record criminals in that state-

California Wiretapping Law

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a privateconversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


47 posted on 07/29/2015 9:02:43 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Forward said videos to me and I’ll be more than happy to post them online regardless of what any judge has to say about it.


48 posted on 07/29/2015 9:04:32 PM PDT by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
I’m all for CMP recording these undercover videos but I have always struggled to understand the privacy laws in connection with recording. It’s one thing for example a neighbor peeping Tom to record videos but the law extends to all taped recordings. What if a crime is being committed? Is it against the law to tape a crime?

A spokesman for CMP was on Hannity a couple of days ago. He was asked about this subject and made it clear that the videos were done in complete accordance with the law in the states where they were recorded.

Some states require the acquiesence of one party -- which is, of course, the CMP representative. Those recorded in the restaurant came under the heading of "overheard conversation" and don't require the approval of either party.

49 posted on 07/29/2015 9:06:11 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

It dawns on me you don’t have to give consent for the interactions between you and a police officer making a traffic stop. You should not have to have consent to record a conversation you are part of.


50 posted on 07/29/2015 9:11:48 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

That’s a good point, but I believe, and may be mistaken, that police are the exception to the rule- but if not, that would be a great defense in court “I was recorded without my consent your honor”


51 posted on 07/29/2015 9:14:31 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They should have these videos on time release from servers outside the country. Make them public property. Who cares what a leftist California Court says.


52 posted on 07/29/2015 9:34:41 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

California Superior Court where? Every damned state court is a Superior Court, and who is the effing judge who issued the order?


53 posted on 07/29/2015 9:37:16 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Who says the commie libs down at the Caucasian DNC doesn’t run the courts? They sure as heck do. This is proof of it.


54 posted on 07/29/2015 9:39:30 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (America Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
We will not recover our Constitution until people start saying: “I don’t care what the courts say.”

Other than liberals you mean.

55 posted on 07/29/2015 9:42:05 PM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

disobey the courts...\

“REBELLION TO TYRANNY IS OBIDIENCE TO GOD”


56 posted on 07/29/2015 9:42:05 PM PDT by stockpirate (A corrupt government is the real enemy of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

True, as far as I know.


57 posted on 07/29/2015 9:44:32 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001
“Go f**k yourself, Your Honor”

Come on, SOMEONE has to have the cojones to say it! ;)

Other than the Obama Administration?

58 posted on 07/29/2015 9:45:42 PM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation

I don't know about the judges but I expect my conversations in public places, especially restaurants, could be overheard...

59 posted on 07/29/2015 9:54:17 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27
yes, put them on youtube....so everyone that wants to can see them...

Post them on Яндекс, too. It would be amusing to watch Obama's DOJ and State deal with that. Isn't the internet a blast?

60 posted on 07/29/2015 9:55:39 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson