Court Bars Anti-Abortion Group From Releasing New Videos

[Valin]

ABC News/AP:

LOS ANGELES — Jul 29, 2015, 8:00 PM ET

By CHRISTINE ARMARIO Associated Press

 

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 released three covertly shot videos 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.

 

The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos' release.

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Whose Privacy Did Planned Parenthood Think Was Violated in Undercover Videos?
By Charmaine Yoest

July 29, 2015

 

We find ourselves in a Kafkaesque world as the Planned Parenthood scandal deepens. Entering stage left is PPFA’s new spinmeisters, who have been circulating a memo to reporters trying to suppress the videos. Politico reported that the memo said:

 

“The extremists who entered Planned Parenthood labs under false pretenses violated research protocol, and, worse, violated the privacy of patients involved. Those patients’ privacy should not be further violated by having this footage shared by the media.”

 

Whose privacy, exactly? I just can’t help noting that there are no pregnant women, nor any post-abortive women, who appear in the videos. In the last video, a doctor and a lab tech appear. And then we see the pathology lab where there are babies being dissected. Really, we have to ask: Are these the patients whose privacy Planned Parenthood is concerned about?

[clearvision]

It would be terrible if their server got hacked and the rest of the videos got out. Evidently Texas AG has seen some from a Texas clinic.

[Valin]

@clearvision

 

10 Quick, Important Developments On The Planned Parenthood Scandal

Mollie Hemingway
July 30, 2015

 

Whether or not the story generates major media attention, the Center for Medical Progress’ expose of Planned Parenthood’s participation in the harvesting and sale of fetal organs continues to feature major updates. Here are 10 of them.

 

1) Injunction On Release Of Potential Upcoming Video

 

Late Wednesday, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress, the pro-life group whose undercover journalism has produced three videos showing Planned Parenthood officials engaged in the practice of harvesting of organs from unborn children killed by abortions. Under the terms of the order, the non-profit organization is banned from releasing video of a May lunch attended by three StemExpress officials. The complaint alleges multiple infractions by the Center for Medical Progress, including invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and unfair competition.

The New York Times Supreme Court reporter suggested the injunction was not constitutional.

 

3) Planned Parenthood Claims Web Site Attacked, But Was It?

 

A few days ago, the Daily Dot reported a hack of Planned Parenthood data, and the news was carried far and wide. It appears to just be a listing of 333 email addresses of Planned Parenthood employees as well as their usernames. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood and SKDKnickerbocker managing director Hilary Rosen began tweeting about an alleged attack on Planned Parenthood’s web site. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards released an op-ed in the Washington Post about Planned Parenthood generally being under attack a few hours later.

 

The only problem was that the “attack” wasn’t observed by anyone other than Planned Parenthood officials and their public relations/crisis communications firm SKDKnickerbocker. Further, they were unable to provide any substantiation to their claim that the “attack” came from “anti-abortion extremists,” if it even existed. And then they claimed that the website was restored to working order quickly but that they were taking the website down for the day for extra precaution. And then they replaced their normal splash page with a public relations message about how mean pro-lifers are, including a button to donate.

 

Who knows what happened, but it looked less like an actual hack or attack of a website and far more like an attempt to orchestrate a public relations campaign to help Planned Parenthood look less like monsters who harvest fetal organs and more like victims.

 

To be sure, Reuters bought it. Here’s Steve Gorman’s piece “Planned Parenthood reports second website hack in a week.” But even the Associated Press, which has historically had tremendous trouble covering Planned Parenthood non-obseqiously, had a report that took pains to note the lack of evidence for Planned Parenthood’s claims:

 

 

The group also took its websites down after a hacker attack it blamed on “anti-abortion extremists” blocked access by what Planned Parenthood said are the sites’ 200,000 daily visitors. The organization declined to say publicly how it knew the attackers were abortion foes, and said it fixed the problem but took its sites down for the day to “ensure that we are fully protected.”

 

 

This tweet, which shows the image Planned Parenthood put up, shows how Planned Parenthood’s messaging came off:

 

(Snip)

 

A later update to the site kept the message that the site was “not available due to an attack by extremists” but had a link to donate, a link to book an appointment, a link to find an abortion clinic, and multiple links to help Planned Parenthood with public relations. There were other fishy things people picked up in the source code of the supposedly attacked site.

 

(Snip)

 

 

9) #UnplannedParenthood

On Twitter, people who had unplanned pregnancies or were the result of same posted their stories. A sample:

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

@clearvision

 

10 Quick, Important Developments On The Planned Parenthood Scandal

Mollie Hemingway

July 30, 2015

 

Whether or not the story generates major media attention, the Center for Medical Progress’ expose of Planned Parenthood’s participation in the harvesting and sale of fetal organs continues to feature major updates. Here are 10 of them.

 

1) Injunction On Release Of Potential Upcoming Video

 

Late Wednesday, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress, the pro-life group whose undercover journalism has produced three videos showing Planned Parenthood officials engaged in the practice of harvesting of organs from unborn children killed by abortions. Under the terms of the order, the non-profit organization is banned from releasing video of a May lunch attended by three StemExpress officials. The complaint alleges multiple infractions by the Center for Medical Progress, including invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and unfair competition.

The New York Times Supreme Court reporter suggested the injunction was not constitutional.

 

3) Planned Parenthood Claims Web Site Attacked, But Was It?

 

A few days ago, the Daily Dot reported a hack of Planned Parenthood data, and the news was carried far and wide. It appears to just be a listing of 333 email addresses of Planned Parenthood employees as well as their usernames. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood and SKDKnickerbocker managing director Hilary Rosen began tweeting about an alleged attack on Planned Parenthood’s web site. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards released an op-ed in the Washington Post about Planned Parenthood generally being under attack a few hours later.

 

The only problem was that the “attack” wasn’t observed by anyone other than Planned Parenthood officials and their public relations/crisis communications firm SKDKnickerbocker. Further, they were unable to provide any substantiation to their claim that the “attack” came from “anti-abortion extremists,” if it even existed. And then they claimed that the website was restored to working order quickly but that they were taking the website down for the day for extra precaution. And then they replaced their normal splash page with a public relations message about how mean pro-lifers are, including a button to donate.

 

Who knows what happened, but it looked less like an actual hack or attack of a website and far more like an attempt to orchestrate a public relations campaign to help Planned Parenthood look less like monsters who harvest fetal organs and more like victims.

 

To be sure, Reuters bought it. Here’s Steve Gorman’s piece “Planned Parenthood reports second website hack in a week.” But even the Associated Press, which has historically had tremendous trouble covering Planned Parenthood non-obseqiously, had a report that took pains to note the lack of evidence for Planned Parenthood’s claims:

 

 

The group also took its websites down after a hacker attack it blamed on “anti-abortion extremists” blocked access by what Planned Parenthood said are the sites’ 200,000 daily visitors. The organization declined to say publicly how it knew the attackers were abortion foes, and said it fixed the problem but took its sites down for the day to “ensure that we are fully protected.”

 

 

This tweet, which shows the image Planned Parenthood put up, shows how Planned Parenthood’s messaging came off:

 

(Snip)

 

A later update to the site kept the message that the site was “not available due to an attack by extremists” but had a link to donate, a link to book an appointment, a link to find an abortion clinic, and multiple links to help Planned Parenthood with public relations. There were other fishy things people picked up in the source code of the supposedly attacked site.

 

(Snip)

 

 

9) #UnplannedParenthood

On Twitter, people who had unplanned pregnancies or were the result of same posted their stories. A sample:

 

(Snip)

 

 

@Draggingtree

 

Here

[Valin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRR1DZM_h4

[Geee]

A California Judge Needs a Lesson in the First Amendment

 

The temporary restraining order issued by Judge Joanne B. O’Donnell is limited, enjoining CMP from releasing the video from last May. The court rejected StemExpress’s demand that CMP take down documents the group received from StemExpress including a supply agreement and price list for “fetal liver and material blood specimens.” The order will be in place until August 19, when the court holds a hearing on the matter.

 

Whether or not StemExpress succeeds on the merits of its claims against CMP for invasion of privacy, the appropriate remedy is not the suppression of speech. What CMP has done is no different than the undercover videos that other media sources like CBS’s “60 Minutes” are famous for.

 

Prior restraint—censorship of speech by the government—is one of the chief harms the First Amendment was meant to prevent. As the influential English legal scholar William Blackstone wrote:

 

The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications… Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press…

 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/30/a-california-judge-needs-a-lesson-in-the-first-amendment/