4 ms·

An interesting question is where the NYT and NC Democrats stand on analogous exposes of Planned Parenthood.[1] If exposing evil Ag businesses is OK, what's the

An interesting question is where the NYT and NC Democrats stand on analogous exposes of Planned Parenthood.[1] If exposing evil Ag businesses is OK, what's the difference if somebody feels the same about any clinic that performs abortion? From a free speech perspective it's hard to see the distinction. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood-videos-activist-ignites-abortion-issue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood...

pessimizer 11y ago
Has anyone said that doing exposes on planned parenthood should be illegal? I didn't see that in the reference, and without that, no, it's really not an interesting question.
- hodgesrm 11y ago
  Yes, the folks who did the PP videos are being prosecuted as well as sued. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-...
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    They weren't indicted for publishing a story. They weren't indicted for writing or producing a story. They were indicted for doing illegal things to try to obtain information to use in their story. In a similar way, someone trying to do an exposé by breaking into a business' office at night to steal records would be subject to criminal prosecution -- not for the story, but for the tactics used to obtain information for the story. (and of course the same grand jury also returned no indictment of Planned Parenthood on the claims made in the story, but either way illegal tactics to obtain information are illegal)
SwellJoe 11y ago
The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. Treating this as merely a partisan issue is misdirection. The people who made the anti-abortion video in question broke a variety of laws (unrelated to whistle-blowing), and made up a narrative that was completely at odds with reality. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-idUSKCN0V32QD http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-id... On the other hand, the videos and documentation that ag-gag laws are intended to outlaw are videos that are merely displaying the illegal/unethical behavior of factory farms; they outlaw (or attempt to outlaw, as they may not hold up in court) protected free speech. If someone were to break a variety of laws unrelated to whistle-blowers and fabricate stories about factory farms, then you could compare it to that anti-abortion video.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. That's not actually the relevant difference, even if it is a difference. The difference with the PP videos case is that the charges there were for things that would be a crime whether or not the purpose was gathering information for publication and whether or not there was secret filming going on, unlike ag-gag laws which directly target gathering and publicizing information (whether the story they is accurate or distorted.)
shireboy 11y ago
Thought the same thing. Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. Others who say "they told a false story" should realize that's a matter of perspective. I'm sure there are those who say the videos depicting cruel treatment of animals are "edited to convey something different from reality". This logic would also apply to every Michel Moore "documentary" ever.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. No, the indictments against the video makers weren't for anything analogous to what "ag-gag" laws address; the indictments were for criminal violations of generally-applicable laws that apply whether or not a video is being made and whether or not the purpose of the act is to present information about a particular business: they were for falsifying government documents with intent to defraud, and for violating a law prohibiting offers to purchase human organs. This is very different from laws which directly prohibit actions because they are taken to publicize (whether accurately or in a distorted manner) what a business is doing. This is just saying that an intent to make a video doesn't exempt you from generally applicable criminal laws.

pessimizer 11y ago

Has anyone said that doing exposes on planned parenthood should be illegal? I didn't see that in the reference, and without that, no, it's really not an interesting question.

hodgesrm 11y ago
Yes, the folks who did the PP videos are being prosecuted as well as sued. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-...
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  They weren't indicted for publishing a story. They weren't indicted for writing or producing a story. They were indicted for doing illegal things to try to obtain information to use in their story. In a similar way, someone trying to do an exposé by breaking into a business' office at night to steal records would be subject to criminal prosecution -- not for the story, but for the tactics used to obtain information for the story. (and of course the same grand jury also returned no indictment of Planned Parenthood on the claims made in the story, but either way illegal tactics to obtain information are illegal)

SwellJoe 11y ago

The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. Treating this as merely a partisan issue is misdirection. The people who made the anti-abortion video in question broke a variety of laws (unrelated to whistle-blowing), and made up a narrative that was completely at odds with reality. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-idUSKCN0V32QD http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-id... On the other hand, the videos and documentation that ag-gag laws are intended to outlaw are videos that are merely displaying the illegal/unethical behavior of factory farms; they outlaw (or attempt to outlaw, as they may not hold up in court) protected free speech. If someone were to break a variety of laws unrelated to whistle-blowers and fabricate stories about factory farms, then you could compare it to that anti-abortion video.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. That's not actually the relevant difference, even if it is a difference. The difference with the PP videos case is that the charges there were for things that would be a crime whether or not the purpose was gathering information for publication and whether or not there was secret filming going on, unlike ag-gag laws which directly target gathering and publicizing information (whether the story they is accurate or distorted.)

shireboy 11y ago

Thought the same thing. Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. Others who say "they told a false story" should realize that's a matter of perspective. I'm sure there are those who say the videos depicting cruel treatment of animals are "edited to convey something different from reality". This logic would also apply to every Michel Moore "documentary" ever.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. No, the indictments against the video makers weren't for anything analogous to what "ag-gag" laws address; the indictments were for criminal violations of generally-applicable laws that apply whether or not a video is being made and whether or not the purpose of the act is to present information about a particular business: they were for falsifying government documents with intent to defraud, and for violating a law prohibiting offers to purchase human organs. This is very different from laws which directly prohibit actions because they are taken to publicize (whether accurately or in a distorted manner) what a business is doing. This is just saying that an intent to make a video doesn't exempt you from generally applicable criminal laws.