Could this be the end of undercover journalism?

The Center for Medical Progress are the AWESOME organisation responsible for the BRILLIANT investigation which uncovered illegal activity by Planned Parenthood, including the sale of fetal body parts, which has led to an investigation by the DOJ and has resulted in the closure of two of Planned Parenthood's business partners which were selling body parts on their behalf.

At the time, piece of human waste Attorney General of CA Kamala Harris, at the request of Planned Parenthood, ordered a raid on the home of Project Lead, David Daleiden, in a totally unjustified and utterly disgraceful and BIASED act.

They have now been sued for almost everything, except for defamation, slander, or libel - because the video camera doesn’t lie! So far they have successfully DESTROYED trumped up, bogus law suits in Los Angeles and Texas, but still have two in CA to defeat, one in the San Francisco Federal Court and the other in the San Francisco State Court. These all stem from California's videotaping law against recording confidential communications. However, the conversations recorded took place in open, public areas, where numerous people could and did overhear, and concerned criminal behavior now under investigation by the U.S. DOJ. So what the hell is going on? What the hell is this law against recording confidential communications? If they loose their case, what does this mean for undercover journalism, at least in the state of CA?

Case details:
https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/support-our-legal-defense/

@xwsmithx, @kazenatsu, @MrTLegal, @Lil Mike, @Pro_Line_FL, @yguy.

 

These law suits happened about 2 years ago, and 14 of the 15 charges were dismissed by the CA courts. One count (conspiracy to invade privacy) still sands (or at least did).

Planned Parenthood has a powerful army of lawyers, so it is not surprising they sprung to action when the video thing happened.

 

And as for the recording law?

I'm certainly not surprised.

 

It is not unique. Most, if not all States have same, or similar laws. I know Florida does. If they didn't have consent, then they broke the law.

 

No, because there are some honest, competent, independent actual investigative journalists out there who are perfectly capable of operating within the law and general journalistic ethics.

When you have two politically motivated and biased organisations acting against each other, it is perfectly possible, indeed quite likely, that both are in the wrong to some extent.

 

So zero undercover journalism has ever taken place before in most if not all states?

 

Secretly recording someone is secretly recording someone. Either it is legal or it is not.

 

Crack cocaine is illegal too, but it does not equate zero crack use. If there has been illegal videotaping, then they broke the law. It is as simple as that.

 

Crack cocaine is illegal. Are you saying that undercover journalism is illegal too?

 

Yes, and in California it apparently isn’t. The existence of that law or a prosecution under it (regardless of the circumstances) doesn’t indicate the end of undercover/investigative journalism though. You could really do to shake this habit of exaggerated rhetoric, it doesn’t encourage reasonable discussion.

 

Do you not understand how undercover journalism works? You know that it involves secret recording, right?

 

It can do, it doesn't have to. There are lots of criminal acts undercover journalists could use to get their stories – hacking, theft, bribery, blackmail, etc. Some will do those things but it’s perfectly possible for them to operate within the relevant laws of whatever jurisdictions they’re operating in.

 

Except journalists will never reveal that they have engaged in hacking, theft, bribery or blackmail. They WILL however reveal that they have engaged in secret recording, obviously by releasing the footage as part of their reporting.

 

That would depend on how they chose to use it, if, of course, they first chose to break the law by recording without other parties consent.

I don't see the wider point though. Are you saying that if I would be capable of getting away with one crime in my job I should be absolved of any other? The fact remains that this law does not make the end of undercover journalism.

 

Depends on the state and the circumstances whether a secretly recorded conversation is illegal or not. It looks like the conversation recorded in this case was in a public place, so it's likely Planned Parenthood will lose. If this had been a telephone conversation, some expectation of privacy could have been expected and the Center for Medical Progress would have lost. In some states, only one party needs to be aware of the recording, not both, so secretly recorded conversations are legal in those states. There is a federal law against 3rd party recordings that is not superceded by state law. If the CMP loses the case, it will be for political reasons and not legal ones.

 

related thread: California passed a law to cover up for Planned Parenthood

 

And what would be achieved by getting their consent? I mean other than destroying their cover and therefore destroying the undercover investigation.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

So then what undercover techniques do you suggest?

 

So, "one party" being the person doing the recording?

So, what does that do? Prohibit any secretive recording?

 

Crack cocaine is illegal. Are you saying that undercover journalism is illegal too?

 

Sounds like a rather meaningless statement in this context.

"The Holocaust was legal, so it's as simple as that"

You get the point?

Something being illegal does not just mean it's like everything else that is illegal, or that it is right for it to be illegal, or always right in every situation that could happen.

 

Is undercover recording a First Amendment issue?

 

That's a hard question to answer.

I'm almost certain it's not an easy yes or no answer.

I would think it would be a bit of a civil liberties issue, for the person doing the recording, in many possible situations.

 

What MIGHT make it a First Amendment issue do you think?

This is what I was thinking. It's certainly an anti-libertarian law.

 

Well, for one example, I could write an article about you claiming you said something that I overheard, you claim that you didn't say it, and then you could sue me for defamation because of the article.

If I didn't have a recording of you saying that, I could lose in court, and be punished for the article I wrote, even though it's supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.

 

There are of course potential privacy issues on the other side, and it could be hard to find a balance.

This seems to me to be yet another example of a "crime of information", and where the rights of one party seem to be inherently in conflict with the rights of another party.

The system in a totalitarian state makes everything that could be questionable illegal, so that the government is legally entitled to decide to do whatever they want and punish whomever they think did wrong. This isn't rule of law, it's just handing all the power over to the courts.