Expose Planned Parenthood, Get a Felony

[JakeStarkey]

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

With a warrant? And please read the bolded sentence. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their consent.

Many states had jim crow laws, and those were found unconstitutional. Appeal to authority.

Warrants are for government actors, not private citizens.

Nope!

Do the Police Have the Right to Tap My Telephone? - FindLaw

You're not clever Comrade Brown Shirt, not in the slightest.

Try a lie that is not so painfully stupid next time.

How is that not true? Are you an attorney?

Shall we consult one? Are there any "real" attorneys on this forum?

Howie, the fascist Uncensored2008 is merely saying how he wants the law to be, not what it really is in California.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because they violated the law?

Violated a "law" passed by the fascist legislature in California that flagrantly violates the United States Constituiton?

Standard Disclaimer: Remember in the Watergate years how the democrats demanded the right of the press to engage in investigative reporting was sacrosanct?

Violated a "law" passed by the fascist legislature in California that flagrantly violates the United States Constituiton?

I'm gonna slow this down for ya.....

The California legislature is elected, and performing its appropriate function in duly passing a law applying to ALL of its citizens.

If said law "flagrantly violates the United States Constituition" one might suspect that SCOTUS would have weighed in by now...

Of course, that's just Logic...

What you and the other fascists don't grasp is that the 14th is binding even when you seek to crush the rights of enemies of the party. Outlawing the press and speech is all great fun when seeking to silence the opposition, yet it is specifically protected.

Oberfuhrer Xavier Becerra is pandering to you hate filled Brown Shirts, he has no hope of a conviction on such blatantly anti-Constitutional charges. But pumping up the snarling thugs in the party is the actual goal. And pump you up he did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have a feeling even the ACLU will be against this prosecution. A ban on recording someone without their consent is a 1st amendment violation with regards to a free press. How can someone do an undercover investigation and be considered credible if they are not allowed to record the evidence of said investigation?

With a warrant? And please read the bolded sentence. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their consent.

Many states had jim crow laws, and those were found unconstitutional. Appeal to authority.

Warrants are for government actors, not private citizens.

Nope!

Do the Police Have the Right to Tap My Telephone? - FindLaw

You're not clever Comrade Brown Shirt, not in the slightest.

Try a lie that is not so painfully stupid next time.

How is that not true? Are you an attorney?

Shall we consult one? Are there any "real" attorneys on this forum?

Do the police have a warrant to wear a body cam? Do they have one for the camera in their car?

Your nonsense is downright silly.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Drooling fucktard?
I'm very impressed.
Apologies but must leave you in your mr creosote wallowing.
Still no educational history?

I suspect our respective prose illustrates full well our educational levels, brite boi.

Perhaps a remedial class in elementary grammar would help you present yourself as a somewhat educated indivudual?

It's unlikely, but worth a shot!

At the ScatDog Lycée of Elocution, do you provide group as well as "indivudual" Instruction.

I provide instruction in the basics of economics, both macro and micro. You should take the class, though it will be impossible for you to remain a fascist democrat once you have a basic grasp of economic principle.

I provide instruction in the basics of economics, both macro and micro.


Did you cast one or more votes for Scrub or Trump?

If so, keep it....

Did you cast one or more votes for Barry of Hillairy?

If so, you're not teachable.

3.. worked hard for the former's election...

What do you believe you can teach me?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Because they violated the law?

Violated a "law" passed by the fascist legislature in California that flagrantly violates the United States Constituiton?

Standard Disclaimer: Remember in the Watergate years how the democrats demanded the right of the press to engage in investigative reporting was sacrosanct?

Violated a "law" passed by the fascist legislature in California that flagrantly violates the United States Constituiton?

I'm gonna slow this down for ya.....

The California legislature is elected, and performing its appropriate function in duly passing a law applying to ALL of its citizens.

If said law "flagrantly violates the United States Constituition" one might suspect that SCOTUS would have weighed in by now...

Of course, that's just Logic...

What you and the other fascists don't grasp is that the 14th is binding even when you seek to crush the rights of enemies of the party. Outlawing the press and speech is all great fun when seeking to silence the opposition, yet it is specifically protected.

Oberfuhrer Xavier Becerra is pandering to you hate filled Brown Shirts, he has no hope of a conviction on such blatantly anti-Constitutional charges. But pumping up the snarling thugs in the party is the actual goal. And pump you up he did.

I didn't start the thread....

so someone got pumped up, but it wasn't me.


I'm thinking that it was some Useful Idiot doing Breitbart's bidding.....

let's check....



yup...

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

To nuts like you, being "rational" renders one a "hack."

Thanks for admitting you have no valid point to make here.

How would you know, Fawn?

Let's test it, try being rational for the first time in your life....

You're too insane to recognize it.

 

[Faun]

Great, so we're in agreement that recording peoples' conversations illegally isn't the only way a journalist can get their job done.

Thanks for playing.

No agreement at all. You didn't answer my question, hack.

And it remains to be seen if the recordings were illegal.

Of course I answered your question. First I pointed out it's based on a false narrative. Then I pointed out that recording peoples' conversations illegally is not the only means a journalist has to do their job.

No, you didn't say if you would believe the content of the conversation if only given a transcript,

Answer the question, hack-boi.

That was a different false-based question of your to follow up your previous false-based question. This one doesn't actually have an answer since there are too many variables. Such as who the investigator is and how much credibility they possess.

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

 

[Faun]

The vid'ers violated privacy laws and conspired to commit a fraudulent act.

They will get 5 to 10 years, like the good little fascists they are and who they work for.

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

 

[martybegan]

No agreement at all. You didn't answer my question, hack.

And it remains to be seen if the recordings were illegal.

Of course I answered your question. First I pointed out it's based on a false narrative. Then I pointed out that recording peoples' conversations illegally is not the only means a journalist has to do their job.

No, you didn't say if you would believe the content of the conversation if only given a transcript,

Answer the question, hack-boi.

That was a different false-based question of your to follow up your previous false-based question. This one doesn't actually have an answer since there are too many variables. Such as who the investigator is and how much credibility they possess.

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

 

[martybegan]

The vid'ers violated privacy laws and conspired to commit a fraudulent act.

They will get 5 to 10 years, like the good little fascists they are and who they work for.

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

 

[Faun]

Of course I answered your question. First I pointed out it's based on a false narrative. Then I pointed out that recording peoples' conversations illegally is not the only means a journalist has to do their job.

No, you didn't say if you would believe the content of the conversation if only given a transcript,

Answer the question, hack-boi.

That was a different false-based question of your to follow up your previous false-based question. This one doesn't actually have an answer since there are too many variables. Such as who the investigator is and how much credibility they possess.

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

 

[Faun]

The vid'ers violated privacy laws and conspired to commit a fraudulent act.

They will get 5 to 10 years, like the good little fascists they are and who they work for.

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

 

[martybegan]

No, you didn't say if you would believe the content of the conversation if only given a transcript,

Answer the question, hack-boi.

That was a different false-based question of your to follow up your previous false-based question. This one doesn't actually have an answer since there are too many variables. Such as who the investigator is and how much credibility they possess.

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

 

[martybegan]

The vid'ers violated privacy laws and conspired to commit a fraudulent act.

They will get 5 to 10 years, like the good little fascists they are and who they work for.

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

So you would be OK with no sting ops on things like Tobacco companies, shady real estate people, and other industries?

Again, by your rules investigative journalism is nearly impossible because it becomes a "he said, she said" equivalent.'

All this so you can keep sucking Planned Parenthood's dick.

Slurp, Slurp, Slurp.

 

[Faun]

That was a different false-based question of your to follow up your previous false-based question. This one doesn't actually have an answer since there are too many variables. Such as who the investigator is and how much credibility they possess.

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

 

[Faun]

The vid'ers violated privacy laws and conspired to commit a fraudulent act.

They will get 5 to 10 years, like the good little fascists they are and who they work for.

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

So you would be OK with no sting ops on things like Tobacco companies, shady real estate people, and other industries?

Again, by your rules investigative journalism is nearly impossible because it becomes a "he said, she said" equivalent.'

All this so you can keep sucking Planned Parenthood's dick.

Slurp, Slurp, Slurp.

Strawman. What a pity that's the best you can do.

I never said I'm against those things. What I actually said, but you lack the intellect to comprehend.... is that the press does not get to infringe on peoples' Constitutional rights just because they're the press.

Savvy?

 

[martybegan]

So, basically a "non-answer". Figures, hack.

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

So that's why you need the tape.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Nope, it's the most accurate answer there is based on how open-ended the question was.

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

So that's why you need the tape.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

They recorded the people in a public place. You do not have an expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

This is nothing but Lawfare.

Conflict of Interest? What's That?

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

So you would be OK with no sting ops on things like Tobacco companies, shady real estate people, and other industries?

Again, by your rules investigative journalism is nearly impossible because it becomes a "he said, she said" equivalent.'

All this so you can keep sucking Planned Parenthood's dick.

Slurp, Slurp, Slurp.

Strawman. What a pity that's the best you can do.

I never said I'm against those things. What I actually said, but you lack the intellect to comprehend.... is that the press does not get to infringe on peoples' Constitutional rights just because they're the press.

Savvy?

And what you are conveniently ignoring is that by preventing undercover recording by journalists you prevent them from having visual proof of any conversation that is made, giving hack-twats like you the "out" of saying "THAT's the source.....pfffffftttt"

Also, please tell me where "the right to privacy" is explicitly listed in the constitution.....

Hack.

 

[martybegan]

It's not open ended at all. Do you believe transcripts of conversations, or do you want to see the video?

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

So that's why you need the tape.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

Another appeal to authority. Again arguing the how and not the why.

And no, says you, because you won't believe any journalist that goes against your progressive group-think.