Re: [CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- June: Emboldened by a recent federal appeals court ruling granting broad First Amendment protection for menacing political speech on the Internet, Which is NOT the same thing as displaying video images taken without the permission of the people shown in those videos. I wondered about this as well. Try doing that, and you'll soon find yourself running afoul of privacy laws in many jurisdictions... Curious; how do such laws apply to people walking into a business establishment from a public street? Remember Tampa's camera defense? Presumably, people walking on a public street have no reasonable expectation of privacy. :-) and since this is planned for the Internet, a person shown on one of these webcams could probably successfully sue for violation of privacy even if no law addressing Internet and/or video peeping Toms exists in the victim's own jurisdiction... There again. . . the very nature of the Internet means that it IS available in jurisdictions where such anti-electronic-peeping-Tom laws DO exist... True. I guess this guy would have to figure out away to block traffic from these jurisdictions. anti-abortion activist has launched Abortioncams.com, a site displaying photographs and video footage of patients, doctors and employees entering and leaving abortion clinics in 21 states. Whose paying for the webcams, and the rent for wherever these webcams will be set up... From what I gathered going to the website (an unpleasant experience to say the least), such footage is obtained through/by volunteers. presumably these cams will NOT be set up directly ON the abortion clinic property, Passers by either on foot or by car? Sidewalks across the street? else they could be easily removed as it would be an issue of trespassing on private property. Only if charges were raised by property owners. Four legal experts Who are not named... As ever :-) say the site is probably protected under the First Amendment. Bullshit. It violates privacy. The devil is in the *probably.* I could set up a webcam pointing into Gary Condit's bedroom and argue that I m doing so for political reasons and argue First Amendment rights...but the fact is, I'd be violating Condit's right to privacy, a right that has been upheld in the courts. Yes, for private citizens. From what I understand, the line between public figure and private citizen is a blurry one at best. Edward + The desire to rule is the mother of heresies. ~ St. John Chrysostom http://www.global-connector.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/ ~~ A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- Try doing that, and you'll soon find yourself running afoul of privacy laws in many jurisdictions... Curious; how do such laws apply to people walking into a business establishment from a public street? Remember Tampa's camera defense? Presumably, people walking on a public street have no reasonable expectation of privacy. :-) A public street is just that -- PUBLIC. One can't expect complete privacy when out in PUBLIC. A place of business is a PRIVATE establishment, according to the law... Someone walking on a public street leading to an abortion clinic could be legally videotaped or filmed...but as soon as they step onto or into private property -- such as the property of the abortion clinic -- they could NOT be videotaped or filmed without their express permission. Same thing applies if someone drives into an abortion clinic's parking lot, which is private property, and never steps into the street but instead exits their vehicle, crosses the parking lot to the clinic and enters...it would be against the law to videotape or film such people without their express permission to do so... Who's paying for the webcams, and the rent for wherever these webcams will be set up... From what I gathered going to the website (an unpleasant experience to say the least), such footage is obtained through/by volunteers. But where are these volunteers and their cameras stationed? If they are outside the clinic, they are trespassing on private property. If they are out on the public sidewalk or street, they are loitering. If they have set themselves up in an adjacent building and are shooting footage out of a window, who is paying the rent? Passers by either on foot or by car? Then they would not be able to constantly videotape or film the people going into and leaving the clinic. Sidewalks across the street? Then they are loiterers... else they could be easily removed as it would be an issue of trespassing on private property. Only if charges were raised by property owners. If they are on the clinic's property, one assumes that the clinic wouldn't hesitate to press charges. One also suspects that every other business in the adjacent vacinity wouldn't hesitate to press charges against such obnoxious trespassers, also... I could set up a webcam pointing into Gary Condit's bedroom and argue that I m doing so for political reasons and argue First Amendment rights...but the fact is, I'd be violating Condit's right to privacy, a right that has been upheld in the courts. Yes, for private citizens. From what I understand, the line between public figure and private citizen is a blurry one at best. But a public figure still has a reasonable right to privacy in most cases. I couldn't set a webcam up in every toilet in the White House and argue that I have a First Amendment right to do so because George W. Bush is a 'public figure'... And what is being done with this anti-choice webcam is NOT involving public figures, but private citizens... June - --- * Check out Alternative Kite Radio -- http://www.altkiteradio.trancetechno com for: * * Alternative Kite Radio (low-bandwidth) * Alternative Kite Radio (high-bandwidth) * Alternative Kite Summer Beachparty Radio (because it's always summer somewhere on the globe) * Alternative Kite Holiday Radio (because everyday is a holiday somewhere) -- A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- June: Try doing that, and you'll soon find yourself running afoul of privacy laws in many jurisdictions... Curious; how do such laws apply to people walking into a business establishment from a public street? Remember Tampa's camera defense? Presumably, people walking on a public street have no reasonable expectation of privacy. :-) A public street is just that -- PUBLIC. One can't expect complete privacy when out in PUBLIC. Precisely, but the cameras in question are aimed at people on public streets. Once the targeted individuals enter the threshold of the establishment at issue, the camera does not follow. A place of business is a PRIVATE establishment, according to the law... Correct, and said camera persons do not enter the establishment. They electronically monitor the comings and goings of persons onto and off of a public street at a specified location--according to the forward anyway. Someone walking on a public street leading to an abortion clinic could be legally videotaped or filmed... Agreed. but as soon as they step onto or into private property -- such as the property of the abortion clinic -- they could NOT be videotaped or filmed without their express permission. Agreed again. Same thing applies if someone drives into an abortion clinic's parking lot, which is private property, Not always, but point taken. and never steps into the street but instead exits their vehicle, crosses the parking lot to the clinic and enters...it would be against the law to videotape or film such people without their express permission to do so... Correct. From what I gathered going to the website (an unpleasant experience to say the least), such footage is obtained through/by volunteers. But where are these volunteers and their cameras stationed? If they are outside the clinic, they are trespassing on private property. Define outside. Outside could be across the street or in a car passing by. In any case, the street and adjacent sidewalks are not considered private property. If they are out on the public sidewalk or street, they are loitering. Presumably only if they are caught or if an issue is made of their presence. In any case, a great deal of footage may be obtained in the interim. If they have set themselves up in an adjacent building and are shooting footage out of a window, who is paying the rent? I do not know, but this is an interesting proposition :-) Passers by either on foot or by car? Then they would not be able to constantly videotape or film the people going into and leaving the clinic. Agreed. I'm not completely certain what they hope to gain by this activity in the first place. If abortion clinic patrons were that worried about any potential social stigma attached to getting abortions, they'd come up with alternate plans (like going to a clinic within a larger building such as a hospital or medical complex). Doing so would offer an immediate solution to the privacy issue. else they could be easily removed as it would be an issue of trespassing on private property. Only if charges were raised by property owners. If they are on the clinic's property, one assumes that the clinic wouldn't hesitate to press charges. Agreed. Hence the best solution to the issue in general: place such clinics within larger buildings which have functions other than the specific purpose of providing abortions (hospitals, shopping malls, etc.). One also suspects that every other business in the adjacent vacinity wouldn't hesitate to press charges against such obnoxious trespassers, also... Agreed! Yes, for private citizens. From what I understand, the line between public figure and private citizen is a blurry one at best. But a public figure still has a reasonable right to privacy in most cases. Most cases? These cases/exceptions are? Precedent would be helpful. I couldn't set a webcam up in every toilet in the White House and argue that I have a First Amendment right to do so because George W. Bush is a 'public figure'... Except where such placement threatens personal or national security, why not? I'm not serious, of course, but this particular facet of law fascinates me. What separates public figures from private individuals? At what point is the former not the latter? Do we determine this by function? And what is being done with this anti-choice Your anti-choice is their anti-infanticide. No one wins in a battle of rhetoric. webcam is NOT involving public figures, but private citizens... Agreed, but such may not be relevant given the place where such observations are taking place. Edward + The desire to rule is the mother of heresies. ~ St. John Chrysostom http://www.global-connector.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/ ~~ A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational
Re: [CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- A public street is just that -- PUBLIC. One can't expect complete privacy when out in PUBLIC. Precisely, but the cameras in question are aimed at people on public streets. No they're not. People walking on a public street are of absolutely no interest to these people. They wish to take pictures of people entering and leaving a PRIVATE BUSINESS Once the targeted individuals enter the threshold of the establishment at issue, the camera does not follow. It doesn't matter if the person has entered the threshold of the establishment...as soon as they leave the public street or public sidewalk and drive into the private parking lot or set foot on the private walkway leading to the door of the private building, they are on private property even though they are outside and can be seen from the public street... You can sit out on the front porch of your house, and just because you can be seen by those who are on the public road or public sidewalk, it does NOT give someone the right to videotape, film, or take a snapshot of you without your express permission...especially if the person who is capturing your image plans to put that image up for public display and viewing... A place of business is a PRIVATE establishment, according to the law... Correct, and said camera persons do not enter the establishment. But they are still capturing the images of people entering and leaving the building, which means they are capturing the images of people who are on PRIVATE PROPERTY, not out on the public street or sidewalk. They electronically monitor the comings and goings of persons onto and off of a public street at a specified location--according to the forward anyway It is very unlikely that the abortion clinic has a doorway opening immediately out onto a public street or sidewalk; I don't know any such building that isn't set off the sidewalk by at least a few feet; as soon as anyone steps off of the public sidewalk to enter the building, they are on private property, even if that property is only a foot long... I also doubt that everyone going into the abortion clinic took public transportation, so in all likelihood the majority of people who are having their images captured DROVE there and parked in a PRIVATE parking lot on PRIVATE property, and walked on PRIVATE property to get to the door of the PRIVATE building. Same thing applies if someone drives into an abortion clinic's parking lot, which is private property, Not always, but point taken. It's the same thing as walking on the same street...no one driving on a public street has a reason to expect complete privacy. Someone driving on that street could have their image captured with no violation of any law. But as soon as that vehicle turns into a private parking lot it is on private property and the person can't have their image captured without their express permission being given... But where are these volunteers and their cameras stationed? If they are outside the clinic, they are trespassing on private property. Define outside. I meant 'immediately outside', meaning they're standing on the clinic's property right at the door or at a window... If they are out on the public sidewalk or street, they are loitering. Presumably only if they are caught Loitering is loitering, whether one is caught at it or not. That's like saying a robber isn't a thief if he isn't caught...loitering is against the law in most municipalities or if an issue is made of their presence. One would assume the clinic would do so... If I were the clinic I'd turn the tables on the antichoice nuts and start videotaping THEM...at least to provide evidence to the authorities of loitering, and/or trespassing, and/or violations of local privacy laws. If I was the clinic, I'd also put up my own website showing the images of these terroristsand since the terrorists are either loitering on a PUBLIC street or sidewalk, or trespassing on the clinic's property, the clinic wouldn't be violating and privacy laws by making those images available for the public to see on the Internet... If they are on the clinic's property, one assumes that the clinic wouldn't hesitate to press charges. Agreed. Hence the best solution to the issue in general: place such clinics within larger buildings which have functions other than the specific purpose of providing abortions (hospitals, shopping malls, etc.). Actually shopping malls wouldn't work, because courts have ruled that shopping malls are considered 'public places', having replaced the village green as a central meeting pointso legally one would have no problem capturing the images of anyone entering or leaving an abortion clinic that was located in a mall... And due to insurance concerns -- because of these terrorists going beyond peaceful protest to bombings and shootings -- no mall owner would ever allow an abortion clinic to rent space in the mall... But a public figure still has a
[CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- Abortion clinic cameras on cable? Likely shielded by First Amendment, anti-abortion activist wants to repackage Abortioncams.com footage for TV By Roger Parloff INSIDE.COM Emboldened by a recent federal appeals court ruling granting broad First Amendment protection for menacing political speech on the Internet, an anti-abortion activist has launched Abortioncams.com, a site displaying photographs and video footage of patients, doctors and employees entering and leaving abortion clinics in 21 states. Four legal experts say the site is probably protected under the First Amendment. The activist, Neal Horsley of Carrollton, Ga., plans to repackage the footage into a TV show, Abortion: Finally, The Whole Story, which he hopes to air on on public access cable channels throughout the country. Edward + The desire to rule is the mother of heresies. ~ St. John Chrysostom http://www.global-connector.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/ ~~ A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Abortion Cams Coming to A Station Near You
-Caveat Lector- Emboldened by a recent federal appeals court ruling granting broad First Amendment protection for menacing political speech on the Internet, Which is NOT the same thing as displaying video images taken without the permission of the people shown in those videos. Try doing that, and you'll soon find yourself running afoul of privacy laws in many jurisdictions...and since this is planned for the Internet, a person shown on one of these webcams could probably successfully sue for violation of privacy even if no law addressing Internet and/or video peeping Toms exists in the victim's own jurisdiction...the very nature of the Internet means that it IS available in jurisdictions where such anti-electronic-peeping-Tom laws DO exist... anti-abortion activist has launched Abortioncams.com, a site displaying photographs and video footage of patients, doctors and employees entering and leaving abortion clinics in 21 states. Whose paying for the webcams, and the rent for wherever these webcams will be set up...presumably these cams will NOT be set up directly ON the abortion clinic property, else they could be easily removed as it would be an issue of trespassing on private property. Four legal experts Who are not named... say the site is probably protected under the First Amendment. Bullshit. It violates privacy. I could set up a webcam pointing into Gary Condit's bedroom and argue that I m doing so for political reasons and argue First Amendment rights...but the fact is, I'd be violating Condit's right to privacy, a right that has been upheld in the courts. June ;-) - --- * Check out Alternative Kite Radio -- http://www.altkiteradio.trancetechno com for: * * Alternative Kite Radio (low-bandwidth) * Alternative Kite Radio (high-bandwidth) * Alternative Kite Summer Beachparty Radio (because it's always summer somewhere on the globe) * Alternative Kite Holiday Radio (because everyday is a holiday somewhere) -- A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
