We have often discussed how free speech is rapidly being curtailed on college campuses in the name of fighting intolerance and ill-defined “microaggressions.” California lawmakers are showing the same dismissive attitude in legislation that is a response to the recent scandal over secretly taped statements by Planned Parenthood officials. The videotapes by activists caused a national backlash against Planned Parenthood so liberal politicians are moving to stamp out future “gotcha” films by sharply curtailing free speech and press freedoms. Democratic state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, and other Democrats dismissed vehement objections from the ACLU, civil liberties, and press freedom groups. I understand the objections to the videotape of Planned Parenthood and the alleged unfairness in editing. However, the solution is not to further criminalize this area of free speech and press freedoms.
The bill that is now going to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk would create new penalties for distributing secret recordings of discussions with health providers. This is all because Planned Parenthood officials were caught discussing the purchase of aborted fetal body parts. There was no private patient information disclosed. It was simply politically embarrassing for Planned Parenthood and their supporters. The result is that the first amendment has to be curtailed to guarantee greater protections for Planned Parenthood and other organizations.
What is amazing is that recording and distributing a “confidential communication” without consent already is a crime under California law. However, the new bill add a specific provision for recording a conversation with a health care provider — a bill supported by Planned Parenthood which says that the taping of the statements of its officials has caused it ongoing criticism and threats. Yet, there was nothing that would be seen as particularly private in Planned Parenthood officials discussing the availability of body parts for sale or research. It would give Planned Parenthood and other organizations in its field a special protection. Beth Parker, chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California blames the Internet and “the tremendous wildfire nature” of news today for the need to curtail such efforts. That is obviously popular with supporters of Planned Parenthood and clearly the majority of legislators in California could not care less about the first amendment and equal protection implications. The bill was passed almost entirely with Democratic support.
The Democrats pushed through the bill despite the opposition of such iconic and respected groups as the American Civil Liberties Union. Journalistic groups have also risen up in opposition, saying that the bill would curtail press freedom. None of that matters. Planned Parenthood was embarrassed so the first amendment must pay.
The bill is the latest example of how the first amendment freedoms are increasingly under attack from the left, which historically fought for free speech and press freedoms as the virtual touchstone of their movement. Now, rather than the solution for intolerance and corruption, it is viewed as the danger itself by many on the left.
The current bill was only modified at the very last minute to include an exception for media, but it is still an unneeded and potentially dangerous measure. What defines a media story in today’s world of blogs and websites is ambiguous and the purpose of the law is clearly meant to chill or intimidate public interest groups in seeking expose what they view of corrupt or immoral or illegal practices. With the existing law, there is no need for this measure, which appears entirely based on a type of fit of distemper over the political embarrassment caused by the Planned Parenthood debacle.
Liberals seen to have developed a taste of speech regulation and criminalization on our campuses and in our state houses. That is not to say that there are not many Republicans with the same disdain for civil liberties and politicians as a whole have never been reliable allies to constitutional rights. However, the shift of the left away from first amendment protections is being so chilling as to be perfectly glacial in recent years.
What Mike said. Our rights come with responsibilities. Taking a right to say whatever one feels like saying or brandying around guns without doing so in a responsible manner should result in a partial or complete forfeiture of that right. Our society conferred these rights to the individual therefore the individual has a responsibility to that society. Or one can yell fire in a crowded theatre or joke, “Is that a bomb in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?”, when getting on a plane. This is pretty much legal masturbation without the vaseline and/or targeting for the sake of targeting a la Trump.
“Our society conferred these rights to the individual therefore the individual has a responsibility to that society.”
The right to speak freely or to bear arms are natural rights that exist with or without civil society. Society, as you say does not “confer” these rights. What society does through a representative government is establish laws that are intended to prevent one abusing these rights to the extent they infringe on the natural rights of others.
Nice try though.
Darn straight! What part of:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
do they not get??? I am born with the right of free speech. Government does not give it to me. I am born with the right to defend my life. Government does not give it to me.
I think Isaac is confusing these rights with stuff like Welfare, Crazy Checks, Food Stamps, and HUD vouchers. IMO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Libel isn’t protected by the first amendment, Professor Turley. If these “gotcha” tapes were raw footage of actual statements by employees, that would be one thing, but they’re not; they’re heavily edited to the point where they appear that different things were said. That is presenting a falsehood as fact regarding the speaker and his/her statements.
Mike,
I agree with what you said. The problem is this law doesn’t address what you are talking about. But you are correct in pointing out how speech may be manipulated and obscure what truly occurred.
Mike writes, “Libel isn’t protected by the first amendment, Professor Turley.” ?
Media defendants, public figures (household names like Planned Parenthood) as plaintiffs, and matters of public concern aren’t afforded different levels of constitutional protection in the case of defamation (a tort)?
The difference here is that this bill is being brought as a criminal statute not a tort. I wish someone could expound on how this difference affects the constitutional privilege.
An aspect of this article is how many democratic members of congress years ago refused to consider bloggers to be bona fide members of the press. I don’t offhand remember which legislation the discussion involved but it merges well with this California bill.
I believe strongly the blogger as we know today would be exactly who would be thought of for the incorporation of the First Amendment into the Constitution. If we examine what made the “press” in the late 18th century, many small towns and individuals had small press facilities with a circulation of very few by comparisons with today’s print media outlets after many consolidations. We have as before blogs having only a few hundred subscribers to some in the millions. Millions? The first US census in 1790 was just under four million persons. Glenn Greenwald, as an example, has over 730,000 twitter followers which would compare to about 18% of the population of the United States then. He would be certainly a person representing the “press” in the minds of the Framers. But, according to too many in the legislature, Mr. Greenwald’s twitter publication is not per se to be protected under the freedom of the press or considered proper news media.
Excellent point, Darren.
I wonder if we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg now that we’re squarely in the information age and that these government shenanigans have been happening all along.
Let the unbeholden presses roll!
Who can really deny the “Left” is trying to stifle the opposition. Here is another example, a Wyoming judge:
There is a lot more at the link, and this would make a good article for this website when the decision is reached.
I don’t think the “Left” will win this one, but winning isn’t important. Just the act of putting someone through this crap will act as intimidation to keep others from speaking their minds.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
everyone will have their own opinion here but the fact still remains! what happened is about gaining power, secondly nobody can defend this bill either way. but lets see what time holds for us.
As others have said above, it’s about allowing the same practice to be justified when It’s “your” cause and despising it when it’s “their” cause. In reality, free speech is the cause.
Everything Lloyd said is correct. Those are egregious examples of authoritarian right wing suppression of free speech. This is an egregious example of the authoritarian left wing suppression of free speech.
There is only one way to freedom from totalitarianism for ALL of us. That is for as many people as possible to support free speech, period.
Good for Jill! The ONLY presidential candidate who support the Standing Rock tribe’s efforts to save their water from an evil destructive corporation.
Autumn, also tomorrow the federal district court will issue its ruling on a preliminary injunction to stop Ar,y Corps of Engineers’ construction at the site of the dog attacks. Apparently, there are ancient tribal burial and prayer sites being destroyed, according to Stephanie Tsosie, associate attorney with Earthjustice. The legal asis for the injunction is the National Historic Preservation Act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTxUdG-H2s
What Jill wrote above today, and what Jill Stein wrote on a ‘dozer shovel several days ago!
I approve this message!
Jerry,, Autumn and Steve,
Did you see this at Democracy now-mercenary who works with the State Dept. on site Sat. during the violence against the protesters. And the governor is calling in the Nation Guard.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/8/headlines/did_dakota_access_hire_guard_from_a_paramilitary_security_co_for_saturday_s_standoff
Yep, just in case judge gives negative ruling September 9, 2016
And Obama was asked about this Dakota oil pipeline DAPL protest in country of Laos by journalist from Malaysia. Watch video & hear ear tickling lawyer response.
That reply was so disingenuous and ignorant. He has to go back to his staff to figure out what is happening is wrong?
He’s the guy pushing the TPP so no surprise here. Still, this was really disrespectful.
I did see that segment on video from Democracy Now!, Jill. It’s hard to believe the military contractor was there on government authority, however. He probably had a connection to a connection where he could make a few bucks is my thought, but what do I know. Notice his dog didn’t attack anyone though, at least as I recall.
As for the national guard, I think North Dakota probably calls in the Guard when there’s bicycle theft, too.
4,000 Army guardsmen are ready to attack DAPL camp in North Dakota. Hold on to your seats!
Yes, an officer of a mercenary company advising another company which is not licensed to have dogs that are trained to bite humans and the national guard. All arrayed against the protesters. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s horrible when the left OR the right moves to suppress free speech. The moves on campuses to restrict speech are wrong headed, as are the moves by industry to make it illegal to film animal cruelty or unsanitary conditions. Remember Oprah getting sued by the beef industry?
Do you know it’s illegal to say that ALL your cattle have been screened for Mad Cow disease?
Maybe they could just up the penalties for doing what these lying liars did to Planned Parenthood (lying for Jesus and all), so they can spend a LOT more time in prison and go bankrupt paying their fines and settling lawsuits.
Oh, also, there’s almost NO in person voter fraud. Less than .001% ever. The real potential for voter fraud, as Karl Rove could tell you, is in absentee and mail-in ballots and then especially in the reportin of votes from precinct-to-district-to-state centers. That’s where they hit it in Ohio in 2004.
Democratic pols seldom miss an opportunity to display to the world that they’re unfit to govern. Anywhere. At any time.
Olly: Thanks for bringing up and nailing down what I also saw in Prof. Turley’s post, too. We don’t agree a lot of the time, but you have my respect.
This lefty in drab grey tunic – standing alongside conservative Team Turley – thinks the Gomez bill was written solely for political pandering, and Gov. Moonbeam should do the world a favor and say so in a non-signing statement.
The First Amendment is more important than this “petty opportunist poltician’s” (per Ajamu Baraka on Slick Willie) legislation, let alone, as Prof. Turley pointed out, there are already criminal penalties under California law for disclosing communications where the speaker has an expectation of privacy and has not given permission to disclose.
To imply, however, that such proposed legislation is strictly a liberal or left-leaning, unfair means to an end is absurd.
@just curious
How about Jill Stein? She is a Progressive not a Liberal.
And North Dakota police issues an arrest warrant for Jill Stein for vandalism and trespassing at a North Dakota DAPL construction site.
Planned Parenthood is pretty evil. the full videos are up. Watch em. There is no edits to make them look bad, they are evil to start with.
Sick stuff and anyone who defends Planned Parenthood is either greatly mislead or pretty sick themselves.
Nobody can defend this bill either. It curtails the press. Period.
Just one
Olly, It’s the old double standard.
Liberals applaud diversity and tout inclusion as long as one does not hold conservative views or religious beliefs.
No one admonishes drone strikes and resulting collateral damage by the current administration, not to mention the assassination of an American citizen on foreign soil, without the due process -so important to Guantanamo detainees.
etc., etc. It’s all ok. a fraternal mentality.
And no, I am not a trump supporter. I will not vote for president in this election. I have no one to vote for.
Thank you, Mr. Turley, for your honest approach to constitutional issues.
Wow, with even the ACLU against this legislation? See, this is the Amerika that the uber lib’s want to have. Control. Control and more control.
Who among us would have thought, just a couple of decades ago, that free speech, one of the most basic freedom’s of humanity, would be under attack from nearly every corner, and in between.
Depending on your age and what you learned about American history, the good and bad, did you ever think that your right or anyone else’s right to speak out would be controlled by the speech police? The evidence is everywhere. What I fear most about is what this country will look like in 20 years. Will certain ethnic foods be banned because of their name? Will certain clothes and accessories be banned because of what imaginary mental harm they are perceived to do? Will certain types of movies simply not be funded?
What is not taught in schools is that Americans fought war after war to guarantee those rights. If you don’t believe me, ask the Europeans. Ask the Africans. Ask the countries that ring the Mediterranean Sea. What value can you put on that? But what loss will we be able to live with.
RE: “However, the shift of the left away from first amendment protections is being so chilling as to be perfectly glacial in recent years.
As a lefty who is becoming increasingly dismayed with liberals trying to shut down free speech I agree! It is disturbing how militant Hilbots have become.
What? ‘The bill is the latest example of how the first amendment freedoms are increasingly under attack from the left’. I don’t believe the ‘left’ has written legislation that jails people for videotaping animal abuse. I don’t believe it was the ‘left’ that is curtailing voting rights. I don’t believe it is the ‘left’ that started protest pens for those who disagree with party platforms at conventions. I don’t believe it was the ‘left’ that threatened those who opposed GWB and the fake WMD Iraq war. I don’t think it was the left that beat and sent attack dogs at Native American protesters fighting to stop a destructive pipeline in North Dakota. I don’t believe it was the ‘left’ that silenced vote counting in Florida that gave us GWB and his destruction. The ‘left’ has their issues but don’t forget the ‘right’ is worse in their treatment of free speech…..
This issue is about the infringement of rights…..period. Your defense of the “Left” as not being as bad as the “Right” is precisely why our rights continue to be trampled. If you stopped defending the abuse by your “side” then you have a credible leg to stand on when the other “side” does it.
Precisely
I don’t believe it was the ‘left’ that is curtailing voting rights.
No, the left merely assets that banal measures to prevent them from stuffing the ballot box amount to ‘curtailing voting rights’.
Just another example of the contempt of “law makers” for the Bill of Rights.
This action is about power – the power to anoint one group (or ideology) over another.
George Bernard Shaw warned us: ““A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul
can be assured of the support of Paul.”
In this case California is robbing Americans with the support of liberals; recognize that the right has done the same thing many times – politicians of both sides are wrong when they do this.
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Cut their private body parts off (you know what I mean) and ship them to Siberia.
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.