Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I am relying on memory here, but I believe that it was not illegal to film upskirts until there were specific laws passed to address it.
    This is because of the same problems with "expectation of privacy" that I have mentioned above.
    And you are right suits can be filed by anyone for anything.
    You're right about the upskirt stuff, but honestly, my memory on those cases is vague - and I'm pretty sure the textbook I read is bleeding over into a CSI episode I saw once.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    True, but then at the end of the day, you can get sued for anything, so its more about minimizing the chances of a legitimate case. Though even an idiot can still cost you a few thousand dollars without any chance of actually winning their case.

    I imagine part of the issue here is that it was done secretly, and secret recording is a very questionable. Journalists have a lot of issues their editor will have to weight before allowing an "undercover" segment to be filmed, much less aired, and even then you can still be sued for things like breach of contract even if the investigation proves the original claims are true.

    This is one of those areas where intent and possible damages play major roles in what will be tolerated. Me filming a busy street to show my friends where I am, which I share to YouTube? Unlikely to be challenged. Me filming upskirt shots to get a glimpse of women's panties? That is likely to raise objections - even if both are done in public spaces without the knowledge of those filmed.


    I am relying on memory here, but I believe that it was not illegal to film upskirts until there were specific laws passed to address it.
    This is because of the same problems with "expectation of privacy" that I have mentioned above.
    And you are right suits can be filed by anyone for anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    One of the differences in broadcast shows is that the people caught in the filming is that they can argue their image is being used to generate profits.

    That is a different issue from a violation of the statute.
    It might create civil litigation if you don't pixelate, but it won't cause a criminal prosecution
    True, but then at the end of the day, you can get sued for anything, so its more about minimizing the chances of a legitimate case. Though even an idiot can still cost you a few thousand dollars without any chance of actually winning their case.

    I imagine part of the issue here is that it was done secretly, and secret recording is a very questionable. Journalists have a lot of issues their editor will have to weight before allowing an "undercover" segment to be filmed, much less aired, and even then you can still be sued for things like breach of contract even if the investigation proves the original claims are true.

    This is one of those areas where intent and possible damages play major roles in what will be tolerated. Me filming a busy street to show my friends where I am, which I share to YouTube? Unlikely to be challenged. Me filming upskirt shots to get a glimpse of women's panties? That is likely to raise objections - even if both are done in public spaces without the knowledge of those filmed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Off-topic comments about other posters deleted.

    ACG Staff
    Last edited by Daemon of Decay; 31 Mar 17, 00:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Off-topic comments about other posters deleted.

    ACG Staff
    Last edited by Daemon of Decay; 31 Mar 17, 00:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    No reason for anti abortion folk to go undercover...in fact its a form of lying/deception to act as if you are interested in buying things from Planned parenthood and then turn around and work against planned parenthood.

    What the two men should have done was protest outside the planned parenthood center or make a youtube video titled time for a crusade against abortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Speaking on the film bit, that is actually something that does happen. If you've ever seen Blazing Saddles, Mel Brooks once talked about the difficulties in shooting a scene where a bunch of actors stream out of a movie set. The problem was that there was one guy who Kept coming back to the street corner they were filming on, despite them trying to shoo him away multiple times. Eventually when they realized he was back in place and has been caught up in the middle of the shoot, Brooks had one of his assistants run after the man to get his signature to appear on the film or otherwise the whole thing would have been ruined!



    The same goes for many broadcast shows. Have you ever seen a program where faces of people in the background were blurred or pixilated? There are a lot of protections for people being filmed without their consent, but part of it is that you can identify who was being filmed, and for what intent. I know people who have been caught on "candid camera" type programs, and they still are required to sign permission to appear in the show.

    That's also why if I take a selfie in a public place, and you happen to be in the background, I'm legally protected - but if I stick my camera over the wall of your house to snap pictures of your children while they're playing in your back yard, I could be in trouble.
    One of the differences in broadcast shows is that the people caught in the filming is that they can argue their image is being used to generate profits.

    That is a different issue from a violation of the statute.
    It might create civil litigation if you don't pixelate, but it won't cause a criminal prosecution

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    In many states only one person present has to be aware that a recoding is being made.

    Interesting that the Caliban would be so restrictive of a basic tool for investigating corruption...
    It's part of that standard human approach to such matters. I mean look at the hypocrites who used to attack Wikileaks as an anti-American tool for traitors and liars when it was releasing Snowden's information, then turn around and laud it for hosting this sort of content. It's only questionable when it hurts ones opponents, otherwise it's a key measure for personal or national security.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Yes, but the law also requires that the "victim" have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    So, if I am out in public, I can't automatically expect that my actions will be kept confidential and I can't demand the prosecution of anyone who records things I am doing out in public.
    It is not "reasonable" to expect that my public actions be kept private, especially if I make no effort to keep them private. Like whispering in this case.

    If it were otherwise, then think about the impact it would have on all of the youtube videos or pictures we see on the internet everyday. The persons taking the video would have to get permission from everyone in the background as well as the subject of the film.
    If you took a picture of the crowd at a baseball game they could all demand you be prosecuted for failing to get their permission.
    Speaking on the film bit, that is actually something that does happen. If you've ever seen Blazing Saddles, Mel Brooks once talked about the difficulties in shooting a scene where a bunch of actors stream out of a movie set. The problem was that there was one guy who Kept coming back to the street corner they were filming on, despite them trying to shoo him away multiple times. Eventually when they realized he was back in place and has been caught up in the middle of the shoot, Brooks had one of his assistants run after the man to get his signature to appear on the film or otherwise the whole thing would have been ruined!



    The same goes for many broadcast shows. Have you ever seen a program where faces of people in the background were blurred or pixilated? There are a lot of protections for people being filmed without their consent, but part of it is that you can identify who was being filmed, and for what intent. I know people who have been caught on "candid camera" type programs, and they still are required to sign permission to appear in the show.

    That's also why if I take a selfie in a public place, and you happen to be in the background, I'm legally protected - but if I stick my camera over the wall of your house to snap pictures of your children while they're playing in your back yard, I could be in trouble.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    In many states only one person present has to be aware that a recoding is being made.

    Interesting that the Caliban would be so restrictive of a basic tool for investigating corruption...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    First of all you are still basing this on YOUR assuption that the charges were filed in conversations in a public place. You have no basis for this assumption.

    If you and I have a conversation in a restaurant I have no reason to not believe that it is not a private conversation. It occurs between you and me. If you record it you'd be violating this CA law. This was NOT a presentation at a group function, but conversations between a limited number of parties. One party can not record it, in CA, without all of their consent.

    I have said that it was my understanding the recording was at a restaurant.
    I have seen bits of the released video and recall that was the case.

    Given that the balance of the videos were suppressed, I can't know what is in those. I can only address what I know.

    Sorry, your subjective expectations of privacy don't control. Your expectations of privacy are based the standard of the "reasonable man".
    If you are not making any effort to avoid being overheard, your claims that you expected what you said to be confidential aren't supported by your actions and will likely result in dismissal of the hypothetical case.

    I never said it has to be a group presentation and neither does the law say that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    The law is NOT based a expectation of privacy. Strawman. The law simply says one party of a multi-party conversation can't record it in any manner without informing the other party. Simple stuff.

    No they would not, as someone taking video's in public is NOT a member of a conversation between two or more parties.

    At least read the complaint filed in court.

    Um, read the law.
    It helps if you are going to argue what the law says.

    http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co...-sect-632.html

    (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....77ZTqab2.dpuf

    The operative word is "confidential".
    If you read section (c) which I have quoted above you will see that expectation of privacy is relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Cool, you pretty much ignore everything I said and change the subject and suggest I don't know what I am talking about. The location of the discussion is extremely relevant because it addresses the issue I have been talking about that is reflected in Section (c) of the statute quoted below.

    I have been talking about the law, changing the subject to something I didn't discuss doesn't address what I said. I have said that it is my understanding the recordings were at a restaurant.

    The statue.
    http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co...-sect-632.html


    If the prosecution wishes to convict someone of a violation of the law, they must prove each of the elements of the law has been violated.
    One of the elements is as follows:

    (c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....Qe2GDSZ1.dpuf


    Please note that the above quoted section is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.
    The fact that one of the parties didn't give permission is just one of the required elements of the crime.
    The above is also a required element of the crime.
    Failure to prove section (c) means the case is dismissed.
    First of all you are still basing this on YOUR assuption that the charges were filed in conversations in a public place. You have no basis for this assumption.

    If you and I have a conversation in a restaurant I have no reason to not believe that it is not a private conversation. It occurs between you and me. If you record it you'd be violating this CA law. This was NOT a presentation at a group function, but conversations between a limited number of parties. One party can not record it, in CA, without all of their consent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    The CA law covers conversations between two parties. If one party decides to video or tape that conversation then it must inform the other party. The people charged did not do so. Hence the charges. The location of those conversations are irrelevant.

    The entire collection of tapes was taken with from the defendant under a warrant. You actually have no idea what conversations make up specific charges now do you?

    https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/atta...idavit_SF.PDF?

    Guess we'll see when it comes to State court.


    Cool, you pretty much ignore everything I said and change the subject and suggest I don't know what I am talking about. The location of the discussion is extremely relevant because it addresses the issue I have been talking about that is reflected in Section (c) of the statute quoted below.

    I have been talking about the law, changing the subject to something I didn't discuss doesn't address what I said. I have said that it is my understanding the recordings were at a restaurant.

    The statue.
    http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co...-sect-632.html


    If the prosecution wishes to convict someone of a violation of the law, they must prove each of the elements of the law has been violated.
    One of the elements is as follows:

    (c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....Qe2GDSZ1.dpuf


    Please note that the above quoted section is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.
    The fact that one of the parties didn't give permission is just one of the required elements of the crime.
    The above is also a required element of the crime.
    Failure to prove section (c) means the case is dismissed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Yes, but the law also requires that the "victim" have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    So, if I am out in public, I can't automatically expect that my actions will be kept confidential and I can't demand the prosecution of anyone who records things I am doing out in public.
    It is not "reasonable" to expect that my public actions be kept private, especially if I make no effort to keep them private. Like whispering in this case.

    If it were otherwise, then think about the impact it would have on all of the youtube videos or pictures we see on the internet everyday. The persons taking the video would have to get permission from everyone in the background as well as the subject of the film.
    If you took a picture of the crowd at a baseball game they could all demand you be prosecuted for failing to get their permission.
    The law is NOT based a expectation of privacy. Strawman. The law simply says one party of a multi-party conversation can't record it in any manner without informing the other party. Simple stuff.

    No they would not, as someone taking video's in public is NOT a member of a conversation between two or more parties.

    At least read the complaint filed in court.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X