Planned Parenthood Will Sue Group Behind Fetal Tissue Videos
18 replies, posted
Source: [url]http://time.com/4181282/planned-parenthood-lawsuit-fetal-tissue-videos/[/url]
[QUOTE]Planned Parenthood said Thursday that [URL="https://twitter.com/CecileRichards/status/687708766729572354"]it will sue[/URL] the conservative anti-abortion group behind secretly taped videos that appeared to show abortion providers selling fetal tissue, which [URL="http://time.com/4047599/planned-parenthood-videos-david-daleiden/"]ignited a firestorm over the women’s health organization[/URL] before the videos were widely criticized as having been deceptively edited.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Amy Bonse, a lawyer representing Planned Parenthood, said the organization was seeking damages of an unspecified amount. She said the lawsuit names Center for Medical Progress head David Daleiden and several others as “members of a criminal enterprise” and alleges that they “engaged in repeated criminal acts,” including falsifying drivers’ licenses, secretly taping, breach of contract, and “providing fraudulent information in violation of federal law.”[/QUOTE]
good I hoep they win
Go Get them.
I don't know enough about to law to be sure, but investigative journalism (which is what this will probably be defended as if it came to court) tends to have very wide defenses. Including the ability to do things (like claim you are not who you are) that would be flatly illegal if done for profit.
Case in point: the ACORN expose that these guys obviously hoped to replicate. The difference is that while advising would be child pimps was so heinous that there wasn't much defense, what Planned Parenthood does isn't illegal.
So we'll see....
Whoa, how much does fetus flesh go for? Always wanted to make a stew outta that stuff for my local evangelists.
[QUOTE=Turtler;49533223]I don't know enough about to law to be sure, but investigative journalism (which is what this will probably be defended as if it came to court) tends to have very wide defenses. Including the ability to do things (like claim you are not who you are) that would be flatly illegal if done for profit.
Case in point: the ACORN expose that these guys obviously hoped to replicate. The difference is that while advising would be child pimps was so heinous that there wasn't much defense, what Planned Parenthood does isn't illegal.
So we'll see....[/QUOTE]
This stuff was made to be slanderous, and was outright false and used misleading information, context, and editing to portray it's point. Its utter and complete slander. It can't even be defended.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533683]This stuff was made to be slanderous, and was outright false and used misleading information, context, and editing to portray it's point. Its utter and complete slander. It can't even be defended.[/QUOTE]
If they wanted to claim it was slander, they'd have to file charges for that. From the news article cited, it doesn't say they have; just that they have focused mostly on charges of them misrepresenting themselves (and the activities the CMP people were doing,a nd their intent) Not charges where they claim CMP was misrepresenting what they said. And I'm not surprised why.
In the US, Truth has been an absolute defense against slander for longer than the US has been independent. And as misleading or loaded as the editing is, the bottom line is that unless the Center for Medical Progress implanted brain bugs in them ala Wrath of Khan they couldn't have Made them say what they said.
As for editing, that is fairly basic and uncontroversial stuff used by anybody and everybody when it comes to making a video. Can it be used to malicious intent, often very malicious intent? Certainly. But admission that editing was involved by itself does not amount to a chargeable offense.
Which leaves us off with outright false and misleading information and context. In which case the grand question is: where is it, and how does it stack up with what they claim the damages were for?
[QUOTE=Turtler;49533739]If they wanted to claim it was slander, they'd have to file charges for that. From the news article cited, it doesn't say they have; just that they have focused mostly on charges of them misrepresenting themselves (and the activities the CMP people were doing,a nd their intent) Not charges where they claim CMP was misrepresenting what they said. And I'm not surprised why.
In the US, Truth has been an absolute defense against slander for longer than the US has been independent. And as misleading or loaded as the editing is, the bottom line is that unless the Center for Medical Progress implanted brain bugs in them ala Wrath of Khan they couldn't have Made them say what they said.
As for editing, that is fairly basic and uncontroversial stuff used by anybody and everybody when it comes to making a video. Can it be used to malicious intent, often very malicious intent? Certainly. But admission that editing was involved by itself does not amount to a chargeable offense.
Which leaves us off with outright false and misleading information and context. In which case the grand question is: where is it, and how does it stack up with what they claim the damages were for?[/QUOTE]
what? The prices they gave were the cost to ship the fetal tissue to medical research centers. Not the prices they make on the black market. PP does not make profit on those transactions, and the research and insight we gain from detailed studies of fetal tissue samples is remarkable. Additionally, consent is required from the mother.
The full unedited video has the scientist/doctor REPEATEDLY stating that their goal is to merely sustain operations with this money, NOT make profit when releasing fetal tissue for research.
The fully controversial video that everyone complains and bitches about and gripes about is just what happens when a person heavily invested in their science or field talks to civilians. Specimen was unfortunate, and talking about the tissues they like to preserve was again just used out of context. These specimens are preserved for the sake of further research and to fund the operation of these centers.
At the end of the unedited video, the scientist (Nucatola) says "“Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get."
So if its not slander, its misleading and drastically so. I'm fucking pissed and maybe people have seen me show up in PP threads before, but this entire fucking issue is pants-on-head-retarded and should just go the fuck away. But it won't, because of these videos, and now because PP may be (or was it? i've been busy) defunded.
[editline]15th January 2016[/editline]
You could go for the defense of the actions against planned parenthood damaging its ability to provide care to it's patients, maybe. Also, your post is really convoluted.
[QUOTE=Turtler;49533223]I don't know enough about to law to be sure, but investigative journalism (which is what this will probably be defended as if it came to court) tends to have very wide defenses. Including the ability to do things (like claim you are not who you are) that would be flatly illegal if done for profit.
Case in point: the ACORN expose that these guys obviously hoped to replicate. The difference is that while advising would be child pimps was so heinous that there wasn't much defense, what Planned Parenthood does isn't illegal.
So we'll see....[/QUOTE]
It's one thing to lie about your name, it's another if you forge state/federal documents and identifications. There's nothing illegal about lying to anyone unless you under oath, but creating false documentation is a pretty big offense in the eyes of the law. Kids with fake ID's could potentially get hit pretty hard, but most police and judges have the discretion to not go after the highest possible penalty.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]what? The prices they gave were the cost to ship the fetal tissue to medical research centers. Not the prices they make on the black market. PP does not make profit on those transactions,[/QUOTE]
Indeed, and if they tried to claim otherwise and were stupid enough to get caught doing so in black and white then the people making that claim WOULD be liable to get hit by slander charges (IF they were filed, which goes back to the prior point that you can't convict somebody of a charge that isn't filed).
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]The full unedited video has the scientist/doctor REPEATEDLY stating that their goal is to merely sustain operations with this money, NOT make profit when releasing fetal tissue for research.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but in that case the problem is A: Filing a charge (can anyone convince PP on that front to do so?), and B: Proving that the mugs were slanderously (or libelously, depending on the medium) claiming the opposite. Mere insinuations might not cut it.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]The fully controversial video that everyone complains and bitches about and gripes about is just what happens when a person heavily invested in their science or field talks to civilians. [/QUOTE]
As somebody who would call themselves a civilian (technically, everybody's a civilian there) or even "clueless noob", but has had the honor of being taught by some very great people in some California universities who are also invested in it... I'm not so sure. I can imagine a lot of people who might talk like everybody else is in the know and there's nothing wrong with that, but some of the best minds I know are the ones who know all this but break it down into normal people/noobspeak.
Then again, having the tact of a brick isn't a crime, so that probably isn't relevant.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]Specimen was unfortunate, and talking about the tissues they like to preserve was again just used out of context. These specimens are preserved for the sake of further research and to fund the operation of these centers. At the end of the unedited video, the scientist (Nucatola) says "“Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get." [/QUOTE]
Maybe it was just me, or I was reading something beyond, but that was what I figured the tissues they were preserving was for even in the original/hacked video. Mom's a retired nurse and she mentioned things like that.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]
So if its not slander, its misleading and drastically so.[/QUOTE]
I can understand that claim. But that brings up a couple issues.
A: Slander and libel are pretty specific (at least here in North America... thank GOD for lack of libel tourism). Accusations can be completely douchy and sleazy, but not Slander.
And B: Misleading in terms of making accusations is hard to prosecute outside of a few cases. Much like the whole "lying to someone about their love/riches/whatever to get them in bed" boondoggle. I don't like it, but that's the truth.
I'm no legal eagle but I imagine they'd have trouble getting that to stick, and I would guess that PP feels that. Which is why they are going after them in other ways.
But if Slander is hard to make stick, those other ways.....
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]I'm fucking pissed and maybe people have seen me show up in PP threads before, but this entire fucking issue is pants-on-head-retarded and should just go the fuck away. But it won't, because of these videos, [/QUOTE]
I can understand. And my sympathies. That said, even if these guys are guilty as sin and found, that doesn't mean that what they do might not bring up actual issues that people can talk about. That's something this low level lawyer I RP with talked about. The court of public opinion is a screwfest, and "Kamilkaze crooks" trying to make "the bigguh issueesss" visible can be hard to deter if they don't care about being charged.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]and now because PP may be (or was it? i've been busy) defunded.[/QUOTE]
It's at least partially defunded. Both houses of Congress approved, and several state governments have started doing it.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838]You could go for the defense of the actions against planned parenthood damaging its ability to provide care to it's patients, maybe.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. And while I disagree with Planned Parenthood on many things, that is one thing I can definitely empathize for. Mom's an ex nurse and ability to provide care without trouble is one thing she brings up when I ask her for it.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49533838] Also, your post is really convoluted.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about that. My apologies.
Edit: Any way I could make it less trouble?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49533860]It's one thing to lie about your name, it's another if you forge state/federal documents and identifications. There's nothing illegal about lying to anyone unless you under oath, but creating false documentation is a pretty big offense in the eyes of the law. Kids with fake ID's could potentially get hit pretty hard, but most police and judges have the discretion to not go after the highest possible penalty.[/QUOTE]
If I figured they would go down for anything, it would probably be that. I'm not a forger but I've looked into some for drama RPs, and it is taken pretty hard. They could claim that they never intended to defraud PP because they'd release it before, but I'm not sure that would be enough to count.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49533350]Whoa, how much does fetus flesh go for? Always wanted to make a stew outta that stuff for my local evangelists.[/QUOTE]
What is this? Did I suddenly get teleported into the Diablo world?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49533538]You should make dumplings w/ fetal flesh, I heard it is a good anti-aging technique[/QUOTE]
I liked that movie a bit.
[QUOTE=Turtler;49533223]I don't know enough about to law to be sure, but investigative journalism (which is what this will probably be defended as if it came to court) tends to have very wide defenses. Including the ability to do things (like claim you are not who you are) that would be flatly illegal if done for profit.
Case in point: the ACORN expose that these guys obviously hoped to replicate. The difference is that while advising would be child pimps was so heinous that there wasn't much defense, what Planned Parenthood does isn't illegal.
So we'll see....[/QUOTE]
They faked federal credentials and impersonated doctors and medical staff, created shell companies to perpitrate it, then when they didn't get what they wanted they cropped together a video that supports their side that is patently false, which has cost PP massive damages in funds and public trust, ya they can sue
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49533538]You should make dumplings w/ fetal flesh, I heard it is a good anti-aging technique[/QUOTE]
More than your daily dose of stem-cells.
Journalist here. The videos are slander by intent, and misconstruction of facts to negatively impact the reputation of a person or organization. As the lawyers tell us, if your intent is to make someone look bad by presenting the facts of what they've done, you damn well better present all those facts as accurately as possible or we will be sued, we will lose, and you will be fired. It's why I don't work the investigative beat.
I'd say Planned Parenthood at least has a defamation case here.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49534338]Journalist here. The videos are slander by intent, and misconstruction of facts to negatively impact the reputation of a person or organization. As the lawyers tell us, if your intent is to make someone look bad by presenting the facts of what they've done, you damn well better present all those facts as accurately as possible or we will be sued, we will lose, and you will be fired. It's why I don't work the investigative beat.
I'd say Planned Parenthood at least has a defamation case here.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, and thanks for the info. The firsthand knowledge is certainly helpful.
Out of curiosity, since you have some idea of how these things work, what reasons would you see for PP to not put the case foreward now (or at least the article)? It might not be a "rabid" legal field like copyright- you have to bite or you lose- but I don't see why PP wouldn't want to string these guys up for that if they're alreadyf iling these other cases.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49534275]They faked federal credentials and impersonated doctors and medical staff, created shell companies to perpitrate it, then when they didn't get what they wanted they cropped together a video that supports their side that is patently false, which has cost PP massive damages in funds and public trust, ya they can sue[/QUOTE]
The faked credentials and impersonations are definitely something that might be an issue for the law. But as for patently false, there's only so much that can be faked out of someone's mouth. So the best claim is probably that even if the words are authentic, they're so pulled out of context it might as well be.
I'd say PP is waiting for the videos to do as much damage as possible so they can claim more damages than if they had sued them in the middle of the controversy. Especially considering every GOP candidate is putting "defund Planned Parenthood" in their agendas. PP stands to lose a lot, which means a potentially larger payout if they win.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49535894]I'd say PP is waiting for the videos to do as much damage as possible so they can claim more damages than if they had sued them in the middle of the controversy. Especially considering every GOP candidate is putting "defund Planned Parenthood" in their agendas. PP stands to lose a lot, which means a potentially larger payout if they win.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I really appreciate the answer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.