Supreme Court Weighing In on Planned Parenthood Videos

[Somerville]

Supreme Court Weighing In on Planned Parenthood Videos

The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to the Center for Medical Progress, a California-based anti-abortion group that released a series of videos in which Planned Parenthood employees appear to discuss the sale of fetal tissue.

David Daleiden, the pro-life auteur behind the videos, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy to block an order from a district judge to hand over the names of his organization’s supporters and donors. Kennedy denied the request, and Daleiden will have to provide the information to a California district court.
<snip>
The action on the lawsuit comes in the wake of a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs that left three dead on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

It will be interesting to find out who paid for Mr Daleiden's little cinema project

 

[Cardinal]

It will be interesting to find out who paid for Mr Daleiden's little cinema project

I'm confused as to why the donors want to remain anonymous in the first place. Pro life extremists have never been especially shy in the past.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm confused as to why the donors want to remain anonymous in the first place. Pro life extremists have never been especially shy in the past.

Liability... should it come to that.

If we are talking about edited, perhaps manipulated, videos for the purpose of ensuring outrage then it stands to reason that those responsible would want to be hidden. Even if they ultimately get their way.

 

[Cardinal]

Liability... should it come to that.

If we are talking about edited, perhaps manipulated, videos for the purpose of ensuring outrage then it stands to reason that those responsible would want to be hidden. Even if they ultimately get their way.

Still, I've never known pro life extremists to dial down their rhetoric. If liability is in fact an issue and something goes to court as a result, I will have learned something new.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Still, I've never known pro life extremists to dial down their rhetoric. If liability is in fact an issue and something goes to court as a result, I will have learned something new.

I may not come to that, just unsure what else to offer as to why someone pro-life would hide from responsibility of these videos.

 

[JANFU]

I may not come to that, just unsure what else to offer as to why someone pro-life would hide from responsibility of these videos.

Corporate donations- smaller companies making donations? They may not want to have that as public knowledge.

 

[danarhea]

Liability... should it come to that.

If we are talking about edited, perhaps manipulated, videos for the purpose of ensuring outrage then it stands to reason that those responsible would want to be hidden. Even if they ultimately get their way.

yea, they will be liable. They pretty much shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 

[Chomsky]

Liability... should it come to that.

If we are talking about edited, perhaps manipulated, videos for the purpose of ensuring outrage then it stands to reason that those responsible would want to be hidden. Even if they ultimately get their way.

And with individuals like the Colo PP shooter exclaiming "No more baby body parts", the potential civil liabilities could be substantial.

I stress *potential* liabilities - no one knows exactly how juries think on any given day.

 

[Cardinal]

yea, they will be liable. They pretty much shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Except I don't see what sets the videos apart as especially unique. Pro-life people have been using the most inflammatory language imaginable for as long as I've been alive.

 

[beefheart]

It will be interesting to find out who paid for Mr Daleiden's little cinema project

Out and out fraud and propaganda from dishonest people, trying to radicalize the nuts into action.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Except I don't see what sets the videos apart as especially unique. Pro-life people have been using the most inflammatory language imaginable for as long as I've been alive.

Yes, but when their rhetoric brings a nutter out of the woodwork and results in a mass murder, they're not anxious to take responsibility for said rhetoric. Moreover, making fake videos for the purpose of stirring up faux controversy goes beyond mere rhetoric.

 

[Crovax]

yea, they will be liable. They pretty much shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater.

No they didn't and BTW yelling fire in a crowded theater is constitutionality protected.

 

[Chomsky]

Out and out fraud and propaganda from dishonest people, trying to radicalize the nuts into action.

I don't really think the purpose of such rhetoric & activity is to necessarily incite violence; I believe it is coldly & cruelly simple greedful desire for political expedience.

The violence is thought of by these political groups as 'collateral damage', and is accepted as long as the damage does not interfere with their political objectives, or bring liability back upon themselves.

Very cold-hearted stuff!

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, but when their rhetoric brings a nutter out of the woodwork and results in a mass murder, they're not anxious to take responsibility for said rhetoric. Moreover, making fake videos for the purpose of stirring up faux controversy goes beyond mere rhetoric.

Possibly. I guess we'll see. I've made the same argument myself and was immediately confronted with the "free speech" argument, which anybody bringing a lawsuit will experience. As I said, we'll see.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Possibly. I guess we'll see. I've made the same argument myself and was immediately confronted with the "free speech" argument, which anybody bringing a lawsuit will experience. As I said, we'll see.

Well, Crovax is right in a way: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected. The shouter, however, is responsible for the results of his speech. If there is actually a fire, and people get out of the theater, he's a hero. If there is no fire, and his speech results in a panic, he's responsible for that as well. Similarly, the fake videos are also protected speech, but the fakers are responsible for the results.

 

[Chomsky]

No they didn't and BTW yelling fire in a crowded theater is constitutionality protected.

Yes, but those rights also have consequence, depending upon circumstance.

You may a Constitutional protection to say "I'm going to kill you"! But you also have the consequences to be paid for exercising that right, including incarceration or taking a bullet.

Context matters.

And I suspect that's what's keeping the group perpetrators of the video wanting to remain secretive & in hiding.

 

[Redress]

yea, they will be liable. They pretty much shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Well, no. People should be able to express outrage without having to worry that some one will shoot some one over it. That is not really a reasonable jump, from outrage to shooting people. If I post something about being outraged at congress, or some other body, I should not be expected to be in any way liable should some one read those words and go on a shooting spree at congress or some such.

 

[Henrin]

It's pretty pathetic to take them to court over the issue, but it's a bunch of cry baby liberal douchebags, so I suppose that is to be expected.

 

[Cardinal]

Well, Crovax is right in a way: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected. The shouter, however, is responsible for the results of his speech. If there is actually a fire, and people get out of the theater, he's a hero. If there is no fire, and his speech results in a panic, he's responsible for that as well. Similarly, the fake videos are also protected speech, but the fakers are responsible for the results.

And in principle I agree.

 

[iguanaman]

Except I don't see what sets the videos apart as especially unique. Pro-life people have been using the most inflammatory language imaginable for as long as I've been alive.

And Doctors and clinics have been being attacked for that long too. It is a vicious cycle.

 

[Redress]

No they didn't and BTW yelling fire in a crowded theater is constitutionality protected.

Well, I will be damned, you are right about yelling fire in a crowded theater. One of those things I thought I knew and was wrong about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[Henrin]

Well, Crovax is right in a way: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected. The shouter, however, is responsible for the results of his speech. If there is actually a fire, and people get out of the theater, he's a hero. If there is no fire, and his speech results in a panic, he's responsible for that as well. Similarly, the fake videos are also protected speech, but the fakers are responsible for the results.

Sigh. You know, if I shout fire in a crowded theater and there isn't actually a fire that doesn't mean I told people to run around like ****ing nut jobs and kill people under their feet. When there is a fire you're supposed to leave in an organized manner, not run around and start killing people by sheer stupidity and lack of concern for others. No one but the jackass that killed people is responsible for it, period.

 

[code1211]

Liability... should it come to that.

If we are talking about edited, perhaps manipulated, videos for the purpose of ensuring outrage then it stands to reason that those responsible would want to be hidden. Even if they ultimately get their way.

There's that whole first amendment thingy, too...

Was there manipulation that radically changed the meaning of what was being said by those who were filmed?

 

[OrphanSlug]

There's that whole fist amendment thingy, too...

No where in the first amendment does it say "you are not responsible for what you say."

 

[Henrin]

No where in the first amendment does it say "you are not responsible for what you say."

Doesn't it do that by saying congress can pass no law? How can they hold me responsible for what I say when they can't pass any law towards it?