Read the Letter Planned Parenthood Sent News Outlets Warning Them Not to Air Undercover Videos

blaze.com ^ | July 28, 2015 | Oliver Darcy

[MrB]

I’m thinking, though, that everything could be done to the letter of the law,

and they could say it was illegal,
and that’s all the sheeple will hear from the press.

[Cementjungle]

Does that apply to recording in a public place such as the restaurant in the first video?

You need consent if the other party has reasonable expectation of privacy. Not sure how that would shake out in the restaurant setting... it would probably be up to a jury to decide after weighing factors like how close other patrons are, restaurant help, etc.

[Carry_Okie]

By having the discussion in a public place (a restaurant), there could be no expectation of not being overheard, and so no "confidential communication"

Still gray. One might expect that a few words might be overheard, but there is no reasonable expectation that the conversation would be overheard in its entirety, the degree to which depends upon the restaurant. People meet in restaurants for "off site" and confidential meetings all the time.

[Carry_Okie]

If you are in a place where you could reasonably expect privacy yes. If you are sitting in a public restaurant where anyone can overhear you, no.

People have illicit meetings in restaurants all the time, especially cheating spouses.

[Carry_Okie]

Recording a conversation in a public place is no violation as there isn’t an expectation of privacy while sitting at a table in a restaurant.

I would need to see the case. That he is asserting it doesn't make it legal fact. People have illicit meetings in restaurants all the time.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

And they get recorded, photographed and caught.

People, especially people in lust, are not that bright.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Carry_Okie]

And they get recorded, photographed and caught.

Photographed more so since the invention of cell phone cameras. Historically not so much. To be recorded would take an effort, even with today's technology. The microphones in cell phones aren't that directional and pick up a lot of noise.

People, especially people in lust, are not that bright.

And don't have so many options.

It's gray. It's a case involving abortion in California. We'll see.

[HLPhat]

>>WHAT are StemExpress and the others USING these dead baby body parts FOR?

That's a very good question.

"For six months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions."

What exactly were the "criteria" being screened for?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Criteria+for+organ+transplant&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Were they those "criteria"?

[444Flyer]

Amen & Amen!

[444Flyer]

What was done in the dark has been brought into the light. Now they are trying to scamper back into their den of lies.

[MeshugeMikey]

Indeed!??

[ExTxMarine]

Yep. In Texas, only one party involved in the conversation must be aware that it is being recorded. In other words, either you or I could record our conversations (or have them recorded) without telling the other participant, but no third party could record our conversations.

[ExTxMarine]

Of course if you record something across state lines (video conference or telephone for example), then Federal law comes into play, which requires all parties are aware of recording.

Actually, Federal Law only requires one party to be aware that the conversation is being recorded, just like in Texas. There are only 12 states that require consent from all parties.

[CivilWarBrewing]

A good attorney would emphasize the fact that this conversation took place in a public restaurant. So much for right to privacy.

[444Flyer]

We also won't be waiting for accountability, investigation or oversight from anyone in Obama’s administration.

Makes you wonder if they see the bloody body parts of an unborn child the same way they view its stem cells. Life means nothing to them. The desensitization of the value of human life may be part of the plan. Other cultures have taken this direction. It doesn't end well.

From 2009:

“Obama Reverses Course, Lifts Stem Cell Ban”

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=7023990&page=1

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Depends on the state laws....as far as I know WA state and (I think) VA/DC are two party consent states for audio recording....meaning the subject being recorded has to know and agree to it.

Even in WA state, in public, no consent is required.

[Colonel_Flagg]

“We expect this video will be no different in that regard; however, footage yet to come is expected to represent an extreme violation of patient privacy by including footage of post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized be filmed,” it added.

I'm not aware of any fetus being able to sign anything, PP. That's the real "patient" here, and the baby is DEAD.

[Carry_Okie]

A good attorney would emphasize the fact that this conversation took place in a public restaurant. So much for right to privacy.

A good attorney will point out that people use restaurants for private meetings all the time.

[Carry_Okie]

I'm tired of saying this. I provided the link to the quote below early in this thread. Please read the whole thread before commenting.

Just because it is a restaurant, does NOT mean that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy insofar as this law is concerned in California, your assertions notwithstanding.

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 private conversation 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).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

Source

It looks to me like the creeps in the California legislature have made it possible to cite the expectation of privacy in virtually every case short of a debating stage. Guess how a California judge would rule in a civil case about these recordings in abortion happy California? I think these courageous people are probably in trouble. Getting out of it won't be cheap. I think they knew that up front and did it anyway. It took guts.