Okay. I'll post about it

[Beebs52]

Baby parts versus lions. Both will be old news in a month, but, um, ya know?

[Bob Juch]

Baby parts versus lions. Both will be old news in a month, but, um, ya know?

The difference is that one's made up.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/gop-gov- ... any-wrong/

[Beebs52]

That's just in Indiana.

[mrkelley23]

That's just in Indiana.

I was actually pretty proud of my state, for once, in a way. Gov. Pence had no real choice but to order the investigation once those videos hit the airwaves, given his political feelings. But I expected the agency to either drag out the investigation as long as possible, in order to score political points and witch hunt; or to manufacture an outcome which would add more fuel to the fire. That they conducted such a speedy investigation and issued such a firm negative conclusion was surprising to me. Remember, this state is more dominated at the executive and legislative level than the vast majority of other states. And while some governmental agencies can be fairly autonomous, as they are somewhat insulated from political chicanery, I can assure you this is NOT the case in Indiana.

I have a former student who is heavily involved, and heavily invested, in the pro-life movement. In her case, she has walked the walk far more than most people who claim to be "pro-life." She is a physician who has spent much of her post-med school career working in Africa trying to improve conditions for sub-Saharan villagers. She is vehemently against abortion, and is beside herself that these videos are not causing an immediate uprising to stop Planned Parenthood now. All I know is that the videos are so obviously heavily edited that I have a hard time trusting anything in them. After all, if there had truly been a smoking gun -- a PP official with a visor on making deals for baby parts -- then why release all these videos that look like something left over after a Bad Lip Reading product? I respect Christina's passion, and admire her dedication, but it will take a lot more than what I've seen so far to change my mind about the issue.

[Bob78164]

The makers of the video have been charged with 15 felonies. Fourteen counts of invasion of privacy for filming people without permission (California is a two-party consent state) and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy by filming people without their permission. The defendants will face a San Francisco jury. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The makers of the video have been charged with 15 felonies. Fourteen counts of invasion of privacy for filming people without permission (California is a two-party consent state) and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy by filming people without their permission. The defendants will face a San Francisco jury. --Bob

They are innocent.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Democracy Dies In Darkness

[Bob78164]

The makers of the video have been charged with 15 felonies. Fourteen counts of invasion of privacy for filming people without permission (California is a two-party consent state) and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy by filming people without their permission. The defendants will face a San Francisco jury. --Bob

They are innocent.

Of filming people without their knowledge and consent? I think there's video evidence to the contrary. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Democracy Dies In Darkness

I'd have a lot more sympathy for that sentiment in this case if they hadn't edited their footage to create a blatantly false and defamatory film. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

The makers of the video have been charged with 15 felonies. Fourteen counts of invasion of privacy for filming people without permission (California is a two-party consent state) and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy by filming people without their permission. The defendants will face a San Francisco jury. --Bob

They are innocent.

Of filming people without their knowledge and consent? I think there's video evidence to the contrary. --Bob

Filming or recording video of people in public is perfectly legal. You can't record people's voices without permission in two-party consent states. That includes while recording video.

[ghostjmf]

This info is about 30 years old so it may have changed, but here in MA, said a photographer at the time, you can't make a profit off photos of people without their permission. May or may not be law, but no legit media will pay you for the photos without a signed release form.

I guess sleazeball media using non-release photos are prepared to be sued.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Democracy Dies In Darkness

I'd have a lot more sympathy for that sentiment in this case if they hadn't edited their footage to create a blatantly false and defamatory film. --Bob

" l'd have a lot more sympathy" Bob, Bob, Bob, now you are just lying to me.

[Bob78164]

Democracy Dies In Darkness

I'd have a lot more sympathy for that sentiment in this case if they hadn't edited their footage to create a blatantly false and defamatory film. --Bob

" l'd have a lot more sympathy" Bob, Bob, Bob, now you are just lying to me.

Not at all. It's one thing to perform an undercover investigation to get the truth out there, as ABC once got into legal trouble for doing at (if memory serves) a slaughterhouse. It's quite another to use these tactics to put out a piece of fiction that damages the subjects of the illicit taping. I have sympathy for one, even if I might still vote to convict. In the latter case, I'm comfortable with throwing the book at them. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Could have been worse.

Could have been James O'Keefe with a boat full of dildos....