Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos

originally posted by: EternalSolace
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.

I haven't followed the story entirely, but the first video was heavily edited in order to be misleading. The people involved said all those words but the message was taken completely out of context. Sounds like libel to me.

originally posted by: dawnstar
somewhere on one of the links that was posted on one of the threads on ats, I read that there's less than five planned parenthood clinics that are involved in donating the tissues. so well, gee, ya let's just defund the whole bit.

They should be donating tissue. Do you think medical experiments on humans just happen without affecting anyone? In my mind it's criminal to not be preserving organs for use. It saves the lives of millions of people and the baby is going to be killed regardless.

a reply to: introvert

It's funny how that seems to go out the window when it is the individual doing the persecuting instead of being persecuted isn't it? Glad to see rational thought and discussion is still alive and well.

a reply to: Aazadan

well if the closest research facility is so far away that transporting the tissues would be too expensive, or there are other sources for the tissue closer to those research facility thus making it cheaper to get..... maybe not.

the point I am making is some seem to think that it's all the clinics, or most of them that are providing the tissues when it's less than five.

a reply to: Aazadan

It's what was said that counts.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: mOjOm

somewhere on one of the links that was posted on one of the threads on ats, I read that there's less than five planned parenthood clinics that are involved in donating the tissues. so well, gee, ya let's just defund the whole bit. who knows I could be wrong about the offended parties being in resturants or offices but well, then I'd have to ask, the part where there's supposed fetal tissue in the petri dishes, well, where was it filmed? who would have given them permission for film it? was it staged and if so, well, how did they come up with fetal tissue to use to stage it? was if shot at another place. like maybe a competitor?

the whole thing kind of stinks in my opinion, if this group had the truth to stand on, I don't think they would have to contort the facts as badly as they have to convey it.

I totally agree with you. Something is very fishy with these videos indeed. Personally I wouldn't trust anything I heard or saw in them. Let's just hope that the majority of people out there also think the way we do.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Right, the makers of the video are claiming something illegal is taking place and have edited the videos intentionally to make it appear so.

When, in fact, nothing illegal is happening.

You can't just chop up a conversation and piece it together in a way you like so that you can make false claims of illegal activity.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

It's what was said that counts.

The point I think being made is that it wasn't all of Planned Parenthood that said it or is involved even if it turns out to be illegal.

If the manager at Taco Bell sells me a taco under the table doesn't mean that every taco bell manager will do the same.

a reply to: stosh64

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.

That's pretty emotionally charged.

From StemExpress' website:

StemExpress is a multi-million dollar company that supplies human blood, tissue products, primary cells and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers around the world to fuel regenerative medicine and translational research. Founded in 2010, we offer the largest variety of raw material in the industry, as well as fresh, fixed and cryopreserved human primary cells.

Our Products and Services StemExpress is the only company of its kind to both procure tissues and isolate cells for researchers’ individual needs in its own labs. Our human tissue products range from fetal to adult and healthy to diseased, and we also collect bone marrow and leukapheresis for isolation. In our state-of-the-art laboratory, we isolate and culture primary human somatic, progenitor and stem cells. Using the most up-to-date technology, we guarantee every sample delivers the purity, viability and quality your investigators need. StemExpress is also a Contract Research Organization (CRO) and provides biopharmaceutical development, biologic assay development, commercialization, preclinical research, clinical research, and clinical trials management.

Big difference there.

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?

Do you have this same additude concerning taping LEO's?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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

Not illegal activity in any way shape or form. You may not like it - but it's perfectly legal.

That 'single purpose' foundation's intend was clearly to mislead and defame with malicious intent.

To think other wise is to be a close minded fool.

Nothing wrong with a temporary restraining order until the facts can come out.

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?

Could a politician claim this as well?

Responsible positions should be above board.

And yeah they should be taped and wired tapped 24/7.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
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.

Temporary restraining orders can only be issued for pending litigation. Meaning they are sueing the company that released the videos. If it is slander and misrepresentation it will become permanent and required to turn over the recordings to the court. If they lose the case they will be free to release them.

originally posted by: beezzer
Free Speech

The videos seem to be heavily edited.

Distorted speech sounds more accurate.

I would prefer the order say they can't release EDITED video.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

It's what was said that counts.

Taking words without context, and in the worst case splicing sound files together to create brand new sentences is illegal. The court had every right to block this until the facts can be determined.

a reply to: Unity_99

So, we can just do away with the right to privacy thing ... and that silly Constitution thing, right?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

What will you do if it is found that Planned Parenthood was making a profit and was breaking the law by selling dead babies?

Will you, the others, admit to being wrong, or will you claim that it is a right-wing conspiracy?

Will you admit to being wrong?

Or will it be, well, if they didn't do this, they still did abortions, which are wrong.

I would love to see this come to trial. Let the truth be known?