Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos

Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos

Planned Parenthood wielding new hammer against free speech

by Jon Rappoport

August 15, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

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 (“Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle”, Thursday, August 11, 2016). 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?


power outside the matrix

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.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

20 comments on “Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos

  1. Not So Free says:

    This law might stop the MSM “journalists” from posting, but as long as people know how to post annonomusly (sp), these videos will still get out, thankfully.

  2. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    The curtain of secrecy hiding Orwellian leaders will be pulled apart at the London GeoEthics Conference on Climate Change on September 8-9, 2016. Here’s your invitation:

    [sorry, no dropbox links allowed. web links only]


  3. Terri says:

    Why do the people continue to allow these criminals and traitors to be their public servants? the people are totally responsible for the demise of our republic and enable this activity thru their ignorance arrogance and laziness. self education is vital for the people to learn and fulfill their responsibilities as American citizens. it is truly disgraceful that this continues and no one wants to take legal and lawful action. they say the people get the rulers they deserve, and this is true. what will it take for people to let go of their victim consciousness, wake up, and care about themselves and this precious world we live in?

  4. kimbelsmom says:

    Sounds like Pan is trying to make it illegal to air the movie “Vaxxed” in California anymore.

  5. IMNAHA says:

    This might be a trial balloon preceding national legislation, kinda like Vermont’s passage of GMO labeling laws triggered a eunuchcized version in D.C. Otherwise as pointed out above it’s like trying to stop block chain technology, cuz there are 49 other states with servers and the internet. Maybe California will adopt China’s plan of censoring certain things on the internet – good luck with that.

  6. harry1137 says:

    California on the leading edge as usual.

    This time again, as with SB277, taking down constitutional freedoms one by one!

    Welcome to National Socialist California.

    Heil Hitler!

    • Quaram Lexus says:

      Very true Harry… the USA at the highest echelons DOES actually consist of Nazis that were “saved” after WWII… they now fill the ranks of the biggest and most powerful corporations, who got rich by warring anyway. Follow the money and it shows that the Rotschild Nazis are heading this evil elite… these guys killed “their own” to create the perfect justification – the holocaust – for the creation of the state of “Israel”. The Nazis did not lose WWII. They WON it, and are now taking down all states in the world, step by step, to force them into an Orwellian police state.

      Jon Rappoport, HOW DO WE STOP THIS??? Just increasing our imagination does not seem to be enough.

  7. solange silverman says:

    It seems to me, though, that, since this bill is unconstitutional, that it is not legal and, therefore, not a bona fide law.

  8. jhpace1 says:

    @Solange, you can call the bill unconstitutional and not legal, but that won’t stop the police from arresting you and processing you, nor the DA from prosecuting you through local court and the appeals court and up to the Supreme Court, all on your’s and the taxpayer’s dime for years and years. That’s how the oligarchs and bureaucrats work now. “It’s the law” and selective enforcement while you spend your money and lifetime trying to overturn it. There are no more limits to governmental abuse and overreach.

  9. This is obviously their crass attempt at plugging “leaks”. In fact, as usual, it will play into the “opposition’s” hands. Can you see Alex Jones “reacting” to this?


  10. justanthropology says:

    This comes as no surprise: Recall the “terrorist act” which criminalized anyone making an undercover video showing the abuse of animals grown for food. Consider too, vaccines. We seem to be just fine with the suffering caused by fake experimental studies on these beings, yet find it aberrant when the experimenters bump up species. Be clear: whatever is done to the voiceless, and helpless amongst us will eventually work its way up to humans. Some very deep thinkers overlook this critical reality.

  11. From Québec says:

    Hope that Trump becomes your next President so he can put in great Supreme court justices… One for sure, replacing Scalia, could also be 3, and possibly 5.

    This AB 1671 Bill seems to be unconstitutional, under the Supremacy clause
    Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution

  12. Peter Szondy says:

    Does anyone have a thought as to what’s to be done?

  13. kennywally says:

    Wow, we get to see the geeks actually pull off the insanity, right before our eyes. I can only imagine there is lots more stonewalling in our future like we’ve never even dreamed of coming our way and our fellow countrymen…..since this was a bill, they sure must have told some whoppers to get enuf support to quash the oppositin voices into oblivion. I can only watch in amazement of their moves and out inadequate responses to the dirtbags efforts.

  14. john hattabaugh says:

    well, so much for the state constitution, or the federal one. it used to be funny to refer to commiefornia as the people’s democratic republic of california…I guess the libs in sacramento are trying their damnedest to make it so…

  15. Idanha says:

    If it’s any consolation, we had a parallel situation in Idaho after animal rights activists went undercover to film factory farm conditions. The Republican-controlled Congress rushed through the “ag-gag” bill to punish future whistle-blowers, and Gov. Otter gave his enthusiastic approval only to have a federal court struck it down. 🙂 http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/08/04/429345939/idaho-strikes-down-ag-gag-law-raising-questions-for-other-states

    Media attacks on whistleblowers–e.g. Thompson, Snowden, Assange–are nothing new. But whenever the messengers are on trial instead of their message, we can be assured that foul play is afoot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.