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!
Posted on 07/29/2015 5:45:03 PM PDT by BAW
A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously shot viral covert video of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.
The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The court must have somehow found that PP would suffer harm that could not be made up by money damages. I smell a Rat.
From Wikipedia:
The first notable case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on a prior restraint issue was Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). In that case the Court held prior restraints to be unconstitutional, except in extremely limited circumstances such as national security issues.
In the 2014 case of Kinney v. Barnes,[4] Kinney, a legal recruiter,was the subject of inflammatory comments on the website of the company who previously employed him. The company claimed he received extra incentives on the job causing his termination. Although the court ruled that the statements posted concerning Kinney must be removed, they did not prohibit similar speech from being posted online. Their reasoning was that prior restraint shall not be enacted on the basis that it's better to punish unprotected speech rather than hinder any possible protected speech.Wikipedia on prior restraint
Beat the leftist-progressives at their own game. Upload the videos to the Internet then say you didn’t ‘release’ them, you ‘uploaded’ them. How’s THAT for Bammyspeak!
One of the videos supposedly involves a racial element.
So, we need to start a pool on it’s leak date.
1st amendment, anyone?
Fascists.
These videos CAN be released LEGALLY anyway. Just black out the faces in the video then release the video with audio and with graphic that states these are StemExpress officials without naming them. THAT would be legal!
“60 Minutes “ based its programming on ambush journalism
And Michael Moore made a fortune doing it
There has to be precedent
Oh I love it....that was a good one...LMAO...
Here is the link at redstate:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/07/29/stemexpress-restraining-order-center-medical-progress/
maybe someone could “steal” them and make thousands of copies that mysteriously find their way to news rooms
1st amendment rights shall prevail
Here is the court docket:
Case Number: BC589145
STEMEXPRESS LLC ET AL VS THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS ET
Filing Date: 07/27/2015
Case Type: Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
08/19/2015 at 09:30 am in department 86 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Order to Show Cause Re Prelim Inj(and TRO)
Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties
BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES LLC - Defendant/Respondent
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS THE - Defendant/Respondent
DALEIDEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent
DOE 1 - Defendant/Respondent
DOES 2 THROUGH 100 - Defendant/Respondent
DYER CATHERINE - Plaintiff/Petitioner
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
SARKIS ROBERT - Defendant/Respondent’s AKA
SHORT CATHERINE W. ESQ. - Attorney for Deft/Respnt
STEMEXPRESS LLC - Plaintiff/Petitioner
TENNENBAUM SUSAN - Defendant/Respondent’s AKA
Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
07/28/2015 Stip & Order-use CSR
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/28/2015 Order for TRO (AND OSC )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/28/2015 Ex-Parte Application (FOR A TRO AND OSC )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/28/2015 Opposition Document
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
07/28/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (compendium )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/28/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/27/2015 Complaint
07/27/2015 Ex-Parte Application (FOR OSC AND TRO )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/27/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (COMPENDIUM )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
07/27/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
07/28/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 86, Joanne O’Donnell, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Granted
07/27/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 86, Joanne O’Donnell, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied
Prior restraint. Is that even legal?
this can work to there advantage... the group should now start releasing transcripts of the video and maybe hire actors or a cartoonist to reenact them........the media buzz if they did this would be more then if the restraining order had not happened and they just released the video.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, favored EUGENICS which is the wiping out of (perceived) 'inferior' races. This is Planned Parenthood's legacy. This is why they do what they do. Today's PP probably doesn't even know who Margaret Sanger was or what Eugenics is.
Margaret Sanger
You know, I don’t even care if I land in jail over it.
Some things are worth going to jail over.
And if this court said I had contempt for it, I’d say you bet your ass.
I found their email address. I’ll send them message we’ve got their back! I’ll let you know what I hear.
Los Angeles Superior Court, eh? Methinks that it does not have jurisdiction outside of Los Angeles.
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.