3 ms·

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 an

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.)