Orwellian CA bill: reporters can't post undercover videos
Planned Parenthood wielding new hammer against free speech
By Jon Rappoport
This one is big. It adds to California's growing reputation as Police State Central.
First we had SB 277, which forced vaccinations on school
children. Now we have Assembly Bill 1671, which would make it a crime
for journalists to post and report on certain undercover videos, even
though they didn't make the videos.
That's right. In California, such videos are already illegal,
because they don't have permission of all parties to be recorded. But
if Bill 1671 passes, reporters who are sent those videos, or find them,
couldn't post them and write stories about them. Mainstream,
alternative, freelance reporters---it wouldn't matter.
Even more bizarre, Bill 1671 specifies undercover videos that
secretly record "healthcare providers." These are the videos targeted
by the Bill.
Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, has the story. Here are key quotes. Buckle up:
"Controversy surrounding secretly recorded videos showing
Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue sales has morphed
into a California proposal that would punish media companies for
reporting on certain undercover videos. But media groups say the bill,
which is on the verge of clearing the Legislature, could have a
'chilling effect' on free speech and set the state up for First
Amendment court battles."
"Born from the 2015 hidden-camera footage released by the
anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood is pushing
Assembly Bill 1671 which it claims will protect abortion clinics and
other health care providers from similar malicious sting operations."
"The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video
footage of 'health care providers' and subject third parties, including
journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally
recorded footage." [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be
applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not
just reporters.]
"Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage
from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be
opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be
exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the
illegal footage."
"The opponents take issue with how the bill specifically
criminalizes the distribution of communication with a health care
provider. Targeting a specific area of speech amounts to content-based
regulation of speech and is unconstitutional, the ACLU claims."
"'The same rationale for punishing communications of some
preferred professions or industries could as easily be applied to other
communications [such as] law enforcement, animal testing labs, gun
makers, lethal injection drug producers, the petroleum industry and
religious sects,' ACLU legislative director Kevin Baker wrote in an
opposition letter..."
If you feel you've just entered the Twilight Zone, gone down the rabbit hole, you have.
How about this? Some enterprising citizen-reporter in
California secretly records a conversation with a doctor, in which the
doctor admits that he vaccinates all children-patients, but would never
vaccinate his own kids.
The video link is sent to a journalist in Los Angeles, who
then posts it on his website. Suddenly, that LA journalist is hauled
into court and the video is taken down.
What about this? Somebody makes a secret recording of a
conversation between a well-known oncologist and his colleague about the
massive dangers of chemotherapy---including remarks about several of
the doctors' cancer patients who actually died from chemo. A freelance
reporter, who obtains the video, posts it on his site. The video is
taken down, the reporter is arrested, prosecuted---and sued.
And couldn't a California-based pharmaceutical company claim
status as a "health provider?" Supposed an employee secretly recorded a
conversation between two executives, during which they admitted the
company buried studies of a new drug because "too many volunteers died"
during testing. The employee sends the recording to a reporter at the LA
Times. The reporter shows it to his editor. Is that in itself a crime?
Yes.
Here's another quote from the Courthouse News Service
article. This one is staggering: "Journalists who didn't participate in
the illegal recording but were given a copy and simply passed it on to
their superiors could be liable under AB 1671."
"'A person aids and abets the commission of an offense when
he or she, with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and
with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating, or encouraging
the commission of the offense, by act or advice, aids, promotes,
encourages, or instigates the commission of the offense, the proposal
[AB 1671] states."
Reporter: "I've got a blockbuster story. I don't know how we can run it, though."
Editor: "What's the story?"
Reporter: "I can't show you."
Editor: "What? Why not?"
Reporter: "I'd be violating the law if I did."
Editor: "Oh. Somebody sent you an undercover video?"
Reporter: "Yeah."
Editor: "Stop right there. Forget it. We never had this
conversation. Now get over to the candy and marshmallow festival and
bring me back some good photos."
Welcome to the new journalism, California-style.
Free speech? 1st Amendment? Never heard of it.
Protection of "health care providers" is now the number-one
priority, even if, and especially if, undercover videos reveal their
crimes.
---On the other hand, if the state government wants to
secretly record a citizen and use that recording to issue a criminal
charge against him, it's perfectly free to do so. Naturally. Of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment