Posted on 07/30/2015 8:11:49 AM PDT by usconservative
The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary injunction Tuesday stopping the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video showing three officials from StemExpress, a company that transfers fetal tissue from abortions performed at Planned Parenthood and other clinics to medical researchers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Do it anyway.
Meanwhile: Video #4 just released: “Here’s a stomach.”
Humanity to a liberal Judge.
FU!
The First Amendment. It isn’t just for Daniel Ellsberg anymore.
“It’s a boy!”
I cannot think of a bigger moral wrong than abortion, and selling baby parts.
Everything about Planned Parenthood is inherently evil. These video's prove it. Once America sees them, they should be as horrified as we are.
There will be hearings and I want all the videos played & to be part of the Congressional record.
How does a judge stop them? Put it on Youtube.
Absolutely agree. In addition, all funding for PP should be eliminated NOW.
Exactly right. And every time YouTube takes them down, hundreds of people should re-upload them.
Ignore the judge.
Release the videos.
Damned black robe tyrants need some reality lessons.
Tough....they just released #4 anyway.
Make copies and let somebody else release them.
Not “screw”......IMPEACH!!
This is purely a free speech issue, and obviously an unconstitutional ruling, certainly by Federal law, and likely by state law as well.
Cut the parts that contain StemExpress and have a narrator explain what took place in those spaces.
Or pixel-out faces, etc.
Forget youtube... they will just get taken down. Have you learned nothing about Youtube? They need to put it on their own independent server in another country. Upload the vids and then make the website url available to the media who is willing to post the web address in one of their headline articles. This worked for Wikileaks. This also works on other things as well. Most of the online porn industry has their websites off America’s shores for a reason. If a group is going to do something like this in the future, I recommend taking everything off-shore and releasing it off-shore then the courts can’t touch the videos in question, only the people who did the act and continue to live in America.
There are legalties that must be addressed. However, we see this addressing of recordings and the like only when it goes against the left. Some may have forgot about Linda Tripp and her recordings and the legality of those that got questioned. If you record, either audio or video, do so within the legal limits of the law or no matter how shocking and provoking the subject matter is, it will be buried if the recording is against the law. Adhere to the law and they can try to do everything within their power to squelsh it, but in the end they won’t be able to.
Makes me wonder why Planned Parenthood’s attorney hasn’t tried to get the videos stopped for his client, too. Maybe the lawyer is lost somewhere under those layers and layers of subterfuge he created to hide the hideous crime being committed by PP.
Call or email your congressman. Ask them to get a statement from Speaker Boehner’s office. “StemExpress,” a baby organ middleman, is owned by Cate Spears Dyer. Cate’s sister, Charlotte Spears Ivanic is a health care advisor on John Boehner’s staff. Can we get a statement from the Speaker’s office?
You can confirm this by checking sissy’s FB pages and searching Sacramento State Cate Dyer.
Actually, this is a legal issue as to whether the recordings were done legally or illegally. The content of such recording plays no part in whether the person doing the recording is following the law. Free speech is about what each individual says but when it comes to recording of someone else, then it must be determined whether or not the recording was done legally. Free speech is only partially applicable in this case. What is germane to the case is whether or not the recording was obtained through legal means. Illegal recordings even under the guise of free speech have shown time and time again to have penal consequences to the person doing the recordings, as in the case of Linda Tripp.
So the question is this, in the place of the recording - the restaurant and other locations in the video where those being recorded did not know they were being done so, what is the law on recording for both audio and visual. While some may contend the restaurant to be a public space, it is a private company and that also can be debated upon. The reason I say this is because there are different laws for recording in private and public spaces.
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.