Supreme Court Weighing In on Planned Parenthood Videos

[Samhain]

That you have to use a word like "butchering" says a lot.

I'm just repeating what you quoted as inflammatory rhetoric. So which one is it?

 

[beefheart]

It is neither hyperbolic nor inflammatory. It is a fact. Far from a practice that is 'safe, legal, and rare', nearly a million unborn babies are slaughtered every year in the US alone. They are butchered. They...oh...wait...you want the description of killing a million unborn babies a year to be sterile, dont you? THATS what it is. Dehumanized...sterile....much easier to swallow. OK. I get it.

Legal, not butchering. You are using emotion and hyperbole instead of thinking.

 

[Captain America]

I would be very interested in knowing:

1. How many of our gullible colleagues here swallowed the manufactured propaganda videos in the first place.
2. Assisted in circulating the manufactured propaganda, (ie: posted it here at DP or on FaceBook or some other media outlet.)
3. Used the false propaganda as a source when trying to validate their own views on PP.
4. Are still hanging on this "false witness" propaganda as a truth even after it has been debunked.
5. How many don't feel stupid after participating in one or more of the points listed above.

Show of hands.....

View attachment 67193761

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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

So this is a supreme court manner, but the IL assault weapons one isn't? I am not recognizing what my country is becoming/

 

[VanceMack]

Legal, not butchering. You are using emotion and hyperbole instead of thinking.

No...Im accurately describing what happens to an unborn baby that is slaughtered for the crime of being inconvenient, something that happens around a million times a year.

 

[VanceMack]

You have to read the law in total and not try to cherry pick out a specific phrase:

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.​

It's talking about public gatherings where the person it speaking. The first part of the law specifically excludes your contention that just because another party might hear it ("whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another") DOE NOT remove protections against illegally recording a conversation.

The exception under paragraph "C" applies to speaking at a public gathering, para "C" does not provide an exception by simply having a conversation in a public place even though some third party might have overheard that conversation. It is illegal under California Penal Code to record conversations, even if in a public place. It is not illegal under the California Penal Code to record someone speaking to a crowd at a public gathering.


The videos were not a public speaking engagement, they are a private conversation that took place in a restaurant.



>>>>

Indeed. You MUST read the totality of the penal code

but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

A restaurant is pretty much the very definition of the exception.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Indeed. You MUST read the totality of the penal code

but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

A restaurant is pretty much the very definition of the exception.

I disagree.

When I'm at a restaurant - holding a normal conversation and not raising my voice - I have a reasonable expectation that my conversations are not being overheard or recorded.



>>>>

 

[VanceMack]

I disagree.

When I'm at a restaurant - holding a normal conversation and not raising my voice - I have a reasonable expectation that my conversations are not being overheard or recorded.



>>>>

Sorry. Thats really NOT reasonable. And the only way you could think that is if you either a-have never been to a public restaurant or b-have a preconceived notion you are trying to defend.

 

[Henrin]

I disagree.

When I'm at a restaurant - holding a normal conversation and not raising my voice - I have a reasonable expectation that my conversations are not being overheard or recorded.

>>>>

So I'm just walking by when you're talking about something personal and I hear everything.

I guess that happens when you're sitting in a big room filled with people.

 

[Absentglare]

Sorry. Thats really NOT reasonable. And the only way you could think that is if you either a-have never been to a public restaurant or b-have a preconceived notion you are trying to defend.

No dude you're completely wrong.

You are not allowed to just record everything you hear other people say because the sound waves touched public air. That's just a stupid argument you have and it's not backed by any law or precedence that i'm aware of.

You HAVE to tell people when you record conversations that they expect to be private. You HAVE to have permission before publicizing private statements. Hell, you need permission to cite who the speaker is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So I'm just walking by when you're talking about something personal and I hear everything.

I guess that happens when you're sitting in a big room filled with people.

If you hear everything you aren't walking by, you are stopping if you hear more than a word or two.


We were at restaurant on Saturday night. My wife, son and I were sitting in a room full of people. Didn't hear anyone's conversations. Sure there was a level o of background noise, but can't remember hearing the conversion of anyone else not at our table.


>>>>

 

[VanceMack]

No dude you're completely wrong.

You are not allowed to just record everything you hear other people say because the sound waves touched public air. That's just a stupid argument you have and it's not backed by any law or precedence that i'm aware of.

You HAVE to tell people when you record conversations that they expect to be private. You HAVE to have permission before publicizing private statements. Hell, you need permission to cite who the speaker is.

read the penal code...then get back to me.

 

[beefheart]

No...Im accurately describing what happens to an unborn baby that is slaughtered for the crime of being inconvenient, something that happens around a million times a year.

Nope. Just angry rhetoric and loaded words meant to incite.

 

[joG]

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

I'm more interested in the fact that tax money goes into pp. That should interest the ussc, though, I suspect they would let the low level segregation ride instead of the more stringent type required for ethical separation.

 

[Absentglare]

read the penal code...then get back to me.

That's not how it works. Re-read this thread, considerable material has been cited for you that exactly coincides with you being completely wrong. Feel free to find your own citation instead of trying to send me on some pointless errand whose concluding statement you are likely to idly dismiss without reason.

 

[digitusmedius]

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.

That they're also bullies and cowards? I don't think that's new.

 

[sangha]

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.

I think the article addresses the issue

Orrick wants Daleiden to release the names in order to find out who was given confidential information about the National Abortion Federation, and has dismissed the argument that First Amendment "freedom of association" rights protects the CMP supporters, who may have been privy to illegal dealings as Daleiden went undercover to expose the health care provider's practices.

If they knew their money was supported an illegal operation, they may be guilty of crimes

 

[VanceMack]

Nope. Just angry rhetoric and loaded words meant to incite.

:lamo If you would rather put a Bob Ross spin on butchering unborn children...please feel free to do so. I can only assume that helps you better live with the reality that you endorse the slaughter of a million unborn babies a year. In the US alone.

 

[sangha]

I'm not worried about "discussions of selling baby parts for fun and profit", as no such conversations took place.

Try to stay on topic -- if it is possible.

NOT ONE Republican investigation has found any illegal behaviour on the part of Planned Parenthood, which of course means little to those who 'know' what they 'know'

The question remains: Why is the Center for Medical 'Progress' refusing to release the names of those who funded their near 3 years-long espionage effort?

some minor questions: Did Daleiden and his associates violate California regulations concerning false identification information? Did Daleiden and his associates violate various civil codes when they spoke out after they had voluntarily signed confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements?

Those aren't minor questions. They go to the heart of this case which isn't, despite everyone in this thread believing it is, about how the videos motivated Mr Dear to go on a rampage or how they slandered PP

 

[VanceMack]

That's not how it works. Re-read this thread, considerable material has been cited for you that exactly coincides with you being completely wrong. Feel free to find your own citation instead of trying to send me on some pointless errand whose concluding statement you are likely to idly dismiss without reason.

We have been discussing the ACTUAL code. Your impassioned "NU UNH!!!" notwithstanding.

 

[dolphinocean]

The "incitement" comes from editing the videos in order to cast the people of Planned Parenthood in the worst possible manner.
Daleiden did not "document" the conversations; he created entirely false conversations by editing out the explanations and by removing context for the statements by Planned Parenthood employees.

Interesting -- it appears you are now saying the aborted foetuses are little more than the equivalent of mistreated animals.

Yes, if death, injuries or damages result from the issuing of videos showing the mistreatment of animals, the names of those who made the videos and those who paid for them should be made known to the public.

I guess CNN and other major mainstream media have been doing all kinds of video editing, some even staged or doctored, in order to cast Israelis in the worst possible manner to incite Islamic extremist violence against the Jews everywhere with impunity for ages. Haven't heard a peep out of you or other socialist liberals, have we?

Don't be ridiculous. Who is saying aborted fetuses are little more than the equivalent of mistreated animals, except you? Comparing CMP investigative video taping vs animal right groups' video taping of animal abuse in farm isn't comparing the equivalency of aborted human fetuses with that of animals abuse. Might want to learn some reading comprehension.

Yeah, if death, injuries or damages result from the issuing of videos showing the butchering of prenatal human beings and mistreatment of body parts, the names of those who committed such atrocity against the unborns and those who paid for them should be made known to the public. That would be the names of the participants and those who support PPH in their atrocity against innocent human beings.

 

[sangha]

That's not what the exemption says, it says:

"(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."​

It doesn't say "public places" it says "public gatherings" and does not include circumstances that a reasonable person would consider a private conversation. For example. If my wife and I are at lunch at a restaurant and we are having a conversation, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation is between her and I and therefore it is illegal for someone to record that conversation. No if I'm giving a presentation at the local VFW about military retiree benefits to a group of people, then those circumstances have no reasonable expectations of private communications so it is legal for someone to record that activity.

It's not "public places", it's "public gathering" as in communicating with a public group outside of a conversation.



>>>>

In addition, some of the conversations were recorded in PP's offices which are not "public places"

 

[Absentglare]

:lamo If you would rather put a Bob Ross spin on butchering unborn children...please feel free to do so. I can only assume that helps you better live with the reality that you endorse the slaughter of a million unborn babies a year. In the US alone.

The "death toll" would only be higher if we outlawed abortion.

This is What Happens When Abortion is Outlawed

"Such laws aren’t likely to lead to a reduction in the abortion rate, but they do force women to take drastic measures to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization, every year 21.6 million women worldwide have an unsafe abortion. Of these unsafe abortions, 18.5 million are in developing countries. Complications from unsafe abortions kill 47,000 women each year; these women make up nearly 13 percent of all maternal deaths."

 

[Absentglare]

We have been discussing the ACTUAL code. Your impassioned "NU UNH!!!" notwithstanding.

No, the code has been cited for you, and your only response is "NU UNH!!! Look it up!!!"

 

[beefheart]

:lamo If you would rather put a Bob Ross spin on butchering unborn children...please feel free to do so. I can only assume that helps you better live with the reality that you endorse the slaughter of a million unborn babies a year. In the US alone.

Lame attempt to paint me as something I am not. That weak kind of argument only works in grade school. It is just like the failed "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of argumentation. That level of debate is something that reasonable people don't do.

Butchering is a hyperbolic word, and its pretty obvious that you are only acting on emotion.