Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Federal judge blocks release of new videos by anti-abortion group
Note: Another article was posted about this on Saturday, but this one goes into greater detail about the ruling.Source: The Guardian
Federal judge blocks release of new videos by anti-abortion group
Hundreds of hours of tape contain ‘no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing’
Judge calls Center for Medical Progress videos ‘misleadingly edited’
Molly Redden in New York
Monday 8 February 2016 20.26 GMT
In a major defeat for the anti-abortion group that released controversial recordings of Planned Parenthood employees, a federal judge on Friday banned the activists from sharing undercover video of an annual conference of abortion providers, saying that hundreds of hours of tape contain “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing”, as the activists claimed.
The ruling, by US district judge William Orrick, also details for the first time how members of the group, the Center for Medical Progress, pursued their targets and tailored their footage to maximize political damage. At the annual meeting, hosted by the National Abortion Federation, activists operated off a “mark list” and, in one case, waited to approach a particular doctor until after she had been drinking.
Before releasing its first videos of Planned Parenthood employees, the center circulated a press release with “messaging guidelines”, Orrick wrote. The goal, the release said, was to inspire “Congressional hearings/investigation and political consequences” for Planned Parenthood, and increase “political pressure”.
Orrick previously blocked the center from releasing any footage taken at the NAF meeting. On Friday, he rejected claims by the Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, that its activities were a form of investigative journalism protected by the first amendment.
Videos of the NAF meeting “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions of criminal misconduct”, Orrick wrote. “Defendants did not – as Daleiden repeatedly asserts – use widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. Defendants provide no evidence to support that assertion and no cases on point.”
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Hundreds of hours of tape contain ‘no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing’
Judge calls Center for Medical Progress videos ‘misleadingly edited’
Molly Redden in New York
Monday 8 February 2016 20.26 GMT
In a major defeat for the anti-abortion group that released controversial recordings of Planned Parenthood employees, a federal judge on Friday banned the activists from sharing undercover video of an annual conference of abortion providers, saying that hundreds of hours of tape contain “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing”, as the activists claimed.
The ruling, by US district judge William Orrick, also details for the first time how members of the group, the Center for Medical Progress, pursued their targets and tailored their footage to maximize political damage. At the annual meeting, hosted by the National Abortion Federation, activists operated off a “mark list” and, in one case, waited to approach a particular doctor until after she had been drinking.
Before releasing its first videos of Planned Parenthood employees, the center circulated a press release with “messaging guidelines”, Orrick wrote. The goal, the release said, was to inspire “Congressional hearings/investigation and political consequences” for Planned Parenthood, and increase “political pressure”.
Orrick previously blocked the center from releasing any footage taken at the NAF meeting. On Friday, he rejected claims by the Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, that its activities were a form of investigative journalism protected by the first amendment.
Videos of the NAF meeting “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions of criminal misconduct”, Orrick wrote. “Defendants did not – as Daleiden repeatedly asserts – use widely accepted investigatory journalism techniques. Defendants provide no evidence to support that assertion and no cases on point.”
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/08/federal-judge-blocks-release-of-new-videos-by-anti-abortion-group
See also: Judge Orrick's ruling
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
