Forensic Analysis: Planned Parenthood Videos Are Severely Manipulated

[Dragonlady]

I'm all for PP. Each year tens of thousands of negro and American indian babies won't have to live in fucking shitholes all their short lives and suck of the 'Maker's teat and be able to claim the only time they had anything to eat they didn't fucking rob was when they were in prison.
GO PP!

Only 3% of what they do is abortions, and well they can't do an abortion without a woman wanting one. What gets me is why are these women needing abortions, Unprotected SEX, which leads to HIV, Cervical CA and other VD's.

Your post seems to assume that the women seeking abortions are all single. Studies show that while upwards of 80% of the women who seek abortions are poor or living on the edge of poverty, over half of them are married or in a committed relationship. So assuming these pregnancies are the result of unprotected sex will lead to HIV, cervical cancer and STD's is both condescending and false.

 

[Coyote]

That's a pretty big claim. Do you have a reputable source for the liberal plan of Indian genocide?

My reputable source is my common sense.
Which political party is pro-abortion? Which political party do every indian tribe in the country block vote for?
How many abortion clinics are located on reservations?
Indian women use abortion as a contraceptive.
Every indian baby aborted was a potential adult indian who could have had a say in the future of indians in the country.
Less indians less political influence.
I don't' think all LIB consciously plan indian self-genocide but they aren't doing the indians any favors sitting back and encouraging/supporting the murder of indian babies.
One of those dead babies may have been an indian Nelson Mandela, or a Gandhi.

Ok. No source.

OK no source. So that means the indians are not self-exterminating by using abortion as contraception right?

It's only you claiming this.

Every indian baby that is murdered in the womb is one less indian who could have been the next Nelson Mandela or Gandhi for the indians. GOD knows they could use a leader now.
Dispute this fact.

OR one less Hitler...

 

[dannyboys]

My reputable source is my common sense.
Which political party is pro-abortion? Which political party do every indian tribe in the country block vote for?
How many abortion clinics are located on reservations?
Indian women use abortion as a contraceptive.
Every indian baby aborted was a potential adult indian who could have had a say in the future of indians in the country.
Less indians less political influence.
I don't' think all LIB consciously plan indian self-genocide but they aren't doing the indians any favors sitting back and encouraging/supporting the murder of indian babies.
One of those dead babies may have been an indian Nelson Mandela, or a Gandhi.

Ok. No source.

OK no source. So that means the indians are not self-exterminating by using abortion as contraception right?

It's only you claiming this.

Every indian baby that is murdered in the womb is one less indian who could have been the next Nelson Mandela or Gandhi for the indians. GOD knows they could use a leader now.
Dispute this fact.

OR one less Hitler...

Excellent point!
So let's just murder all babies in the womb to be on the safe side right?......asshole!
You have the intelligence of a fucking piece of Wonder bread the moral compass of a fucking crack whore.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Since the first video, it has been noted that it was manipulated. Being it was done with hidden camera in some cases, they did not have permission to video or publish those they were trying to trick into saying certain things that they could splice together for their purposes.

Don't need permission, it's in a public place.

 

[aris2chat]

Since the first video, it has been noted that it was manipulated. Being it was done with hidden camera in some cases, they did not have permission to video or publish those they were trying to trick into saying certain things that they could splice together for their purposes.

Don't need permission, it's in a public place.

If they know they are being recorded

>>“California is an all party consent state – meaning a person can be liable for invasion of privacy if they record without the consent of all the parties to a confidential communication,” Dave Heller, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center, wrote in an email. ”So, to have a claim, the target of a hidden camera sting must have had a reasonable expectation that their conversation would be private and not, for example, be overheard or recorded in a public setting.” But, he added, “In California, claims over hidden camera filming typically involve disputed issues of fact between both sides. In that case, the matter could go to a jury to decide.”<<

 

[airplanemechanic]

There is the secret, "to a confidential communication." It's not confidential if its had in a public restaurant. There is no reasonable expectation that your conversation would be private in a public restaurant. That restaurant can post hidden cameras around their store to deter theft, and guess what, that's legal and they don't have to tell you about it.

Sorry, you lose again.

 

[aris2chat]

There is the secret, "to a confidential communication." It's not confidential if its had in a public restaurant. There is no reasonable expectation that your conversation would be private in a public restaurant. That restaurant can post hidden cameras around their store to deter theft, and guess what, that's legal and they don't have to tell you about it.

Sorry, you lose again.[/QUOTE

>>"Two Party Consent" means the person recording the conversation must notify all of the other parties that the recording is taking place and they must consent to the recording.<<

 

[airplanemechanic]

Doesn't matter. Read what I wrote. TO A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION. It's not confidential in a public restaurant. Same reason they can put cameras up to catch thieves. It's PUBLIC. Look that word up, apparently you fail to understand it.

Drop it, you lose, YOU'RE WRONG. I used your own source against you. That's total pwnage. From your source:

The target of a hidden camera sting must have had a reasonable expectation that their conversation would be private and not, for example, be overheard or recorded in a public setting.

Like a public restaurant.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[aris2chat]

California:>>States with Two Party Consent for Audio Recording

The state you clicked on has audio recording laws that require Two Party Consent.

If you are recording audio in this state then all parties to the conversation must be aware that the conversation is being recorded. <<

>>Audio Recording
Most audio recordings without consent of one or all parties are illegal.
Recording audio is very different from video, there are definite federal and state laws prohibiting surreptitious recording and monitoring of audio conversations. These laws are taken very seriously by authorities and failure to abide by them could result in severe consequences.
There are two types of defined recording situations for audio recording. They are usually referred to as "One Party Consent" and "Two Party Consent". <<

The video of them in a restaurant is not the issue, the recording of the conversation is.

If they did not produce a microphone and ask if they could record the conversation, it is illegal.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Nope.

Stop beating a dead horse, your own link proved you wrong. Nobody, anywhere, has stated it was illegal to record them but YOU.

Maybe that should be a hint.

 

[aris2chat]

Nope.

Stop beating a dead horse, your own link proved you wrong. Nobody, anywhere, has stated it was illegal to record them but YOU.

Maybe that should be a hint.

The images were legal, the audio in the video was not.

As for the video being aired publicly or on the internet

>>
You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.
Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.<<

The anti-abortion group did not have the right to post their video publicly or cause harm to the workers from PP.

They did not have permission to record what was being said.

CMP used the video to advance their agenda of denying a woman's right to have and abortion or to donate the tissue. They caused harm to the reputation of both the works and the PP agency as a whole. It made people think less of PP, its workers and tissue banks and the donation process for the use by science to help others.

 

[aris2chat]

>>You may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation if all parties to the conversation consent. It is always legal to record or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. In these instances, the consent of all parties is presumed.

Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit this so-called one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances.1 Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.2


- See more at: Introduction: Recording -- State hidden camera statutes | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press