Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

LOS ANGELES – 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.

Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

This is an incredible move by the court system. This seems to be an attempt to suppress information that's damaging to Planned Parenthood. Will the court issue a gag order on any news stations that continue to run with these stories? This is a VERY dangerous precedent that the courts set with this move.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I bet a bunch that doesn't stop the other videos from being released, just by someone else.

Not the greatest Idea from them.......

First its going to make people more suspicious, then its going to outrage people.....

Bad Move IMHO

I have a feeling this will backlash


before the sympathizers come on here to retort I have one response.....

You want the body cams of officers released to the public , so people can see the truth dont you?

a reply to: EternalSolace

they can just anonomously send it to another anti-abortion group for them to release

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'm trying to find an actual link to the court order itself. I'm not having much luck so far. I'm wondering if this order prevents them from releasing the videos to the main stream media as well or if it just gags them.

a reply to: EternalSolace

So, do you think its ok to tape someone without their consent? Would doing so be libel?

What if someone sitting nearby recorded a conversation between you and another person where you discussed embarassing (but legal) facts about yourself. Would it be ok to play that at the next company picnic?

a reply to: EternalSolace

I wish the article explained some on the reason the court ruled for StemExpress and issued a temporary restraining order on their behalf.

Free Speech

a reply to: EternalSolace

That judge should know better.

Injunctions are legal in our judicial system but, there is usually an actual reason and they should not be used arbitrarily.

The legal language is very fuzzy and includes "maintaining the status quo".

A Temporary Restraining Order is an extraordinary remedy of short duration that is issued to prevent unnecessary and irreparable injury. Essentially, such an order suspends proceedings until an opportunity arises to inquire whether an injunction should be granted. Unless extended by the court, a temporary restraining order ceases to operate upon the expiration of the time set by its terms.

"StemExpress"? Really?!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.


I might not like it, but if the information is accurate then I'd have to deal with it. It's also my understanding that while in public, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy... at least I've heard that stated several times across ATS.

originally posted by: beezzer
Free Speech

Exactly.

Very dystopian.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EternalSolace

So, do you think its ok to tape someone without their consent? Would doing so be libel?

What if someone sitting nearby recorded a conversation between you and another person where you discussed embarassing (but legal) facts about yourself. Would it be ok to play that at the next company picnic?

I think it happens all the time, I think people are monitered 24/7 in some capacity,

Its not right, but it happens......

And this was an investigation into allegations they were doing this, so they went to find out for themselves.......

Investigative journalists do this all the time..........

Is PP protected?

a reply to: EternalSolace

I hope this is the wake up call we need to make a stand and reset our moral compasses.

This is a statement from their website.

StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit” to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public. They are not succeeding—their initial petition was rejected by the court, and their second petition was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond. The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work and will contest all attempts from Planned Parenthood and their allies to silence our First Amendment rights and suppress investigative journalism.

CenterforMedicalProcess
According to this from the OP link.

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.

So they just cant show StemExpress officials on tape?

Why are they worried if it is all 'legal'?
Let the games begin.

This proves beyond any doubt that those videos and the criminal corruption is true.

Period.



#defundPP

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

My concern is that what is being discussed is not illegal, but is being used to defame.

Although im not a fan of abortion, so really don't have much desire to defend their position.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EternalSolace

So, do you think its ok to tape someone without their consent? Would doing so be libel?

What if someone sitting nearby recorded a conversation between you and another person where you discussed embarassing (but legal) facts about yourself. Would it be ok to play that at the next company picnic?

As far as I remember, it's only libel if the intent is malicious. If the intent is to inform the public of criminal activity then I believe it's not libellous. It appears PP was operating in a criminal manner and trying to circumvent existing laws.

Cheers - Dave

I bet there's been some payoffs

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


before the sympathizers come on here to retort I have one response.....

You want the body cams of officers released to the public , so people can see the truth dont you?

Well I don't want to see a heavily edited version, or a version where someone deliberately tried to set a cop up to make him look bad.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oh it is definitely malicious intent. This group wants to shut down PP because they do the evil (legal) abortions.

There is nothing illegal about donating tissue for medical research, and there is nothing illegal in getting reimbursement for costs involved.