Posted on 07/29/2015 7:13:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The California Superior Court has issued a narrow temporary restraining order preventing the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), a pro-life group, from releasing further undercover video footage taken of three top-level staff of StemExpress.
CMP is the organization behind the series of three videos released over the past three weeks exposing the alleged harvesting and sale of body parts from aborted babies by Planned Parenthood – body parts that are then purchased by StemExpress.
CMP has alleged that the fees paid by StemExpress to Planned Parenthood violate federal law prohibiting the sale and trafficking of human tissue.
While Planned Parenthood has claimed that the fees paid to them by StemExpress merely cover their costs, and fall within the bounds of the law, the video footage released so far has appeared to show Planned Parenthood employees seeking profit as part of the transaction.
The Associated Press, which broke the news about the court order, reports that the undercover videos of the Stem Express staff were filmed at a restaurant in May.
It is unclear how just significant an impact the court order will have on the release of subsequent videos in the series. David Daleiden, the lead researcher with CMP, has said that at least nine more videos are slated for release.
The restraining order reportedly only pertains to the footage of the Stem Express employees, meaning that any other footage, including that featuring Planned Parenthood employees, can still be released as planned.
CMP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement released today, StemExpress stated that they sought the restraining order "on the grounds that CMP and Daleiden violated California’s anti-wiretapping law under Penal Code § 632 (Invasion of Privacy Act)."
"We will continue to pursue all available legal remedies against CMP and Daleiden," said the company.
In a statement responding to the court order, CMP accused Stem Express of using “meritless litigation” to "cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public.”
The pro-life group stated that an initial petition by Stem Express was rejected by the court, while their second petition, the one just granted, “was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond.”
CMP restated that the organization “follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work and will contest all attempts from Planned Parenthood and their allies to silence our First Amendment rights and suppress investigative journalism.”
The AP reports that the restraining order will remain in place until a hearing on Aug. 19.
Ah… Thank you for the clarification.
Well said and correct.
If we decide to ignore the law, we’re no better than illegal aliens, Obama and Democrats.
[[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-
[[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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
California Superior Court where? Every damned state court is a Superior Court, and who is the effing judge who issued the order?
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.
Other than liberals you mean.
disobey the courts...\
“REBELLION TO TYRANNY IS OBIDIENCE TO GOD”
True, as far as I know.
Come on, SOMEONE has to have the cojones to say it! ;)
Other than the Obama Administration?
I don't know about the judges but I expect my conversations in public places, especially restaurants, could be overheard...
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?
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.