Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Liberty Counsel’s petition for writ of certiorari regarding a request to review a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against Sandra Merritt in Planned Parenthood’s multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit for her undercover investigation of the abortion giant.
The High Court’s denial of review was without any comment. The implications of this civil case have far-reaching First Amendment consequences involving free speech and undercover journalism.
In addition to Merritt v. Planned Parenthood Federation, the High Court also denied petitions for writ of certiorari in Newman v. Planned Parenthood Federation, Rhomberg v. Planned Parenthood, Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation, and Cooley v. National Abortion Federation.
In the petition for writ of certiorari, Liberty Counsel asked the High Court to consider “whether the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects newsgathering journalists, who operate under an alias to document and expose what they reasonably believe to be unlawful conduct, from being subjected to punitive liability for ‘fraud.’ This case concerns whether, and to what extent, the press may raise the First Amendment as a defense against generally applicable tort laws when undercover journalists gather and publish truthful news of significant public importance. Accordingly, the First Amendment not only protects the publication of news; it also protects the newsgathering process, including undercover investigations, because ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.’”
Merritt and David Daleiden, founder of Center for Medical Progress, released videos in 2015 following a 30-month undercover investigation exposing Planned Parenthood and other organ procurement companies regarding aborted baby body parts. The videos showed certain Planned Parenthood affiliated executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs.
From LifeNews
So the 9th Circuit Court ruling stands. That’s probably the correct decision.
The petitioners were asking the Supreme Court to grant them a constitutional right to be exempt from tort when they lie for reasons that they themselves deem justifiable. That would be wrong. Petitioners do have a constitutional right to lie, but they may not be exempted from the torts that ensue from their lies.
An alternative finding would have opened the door to every person on Tiktok pretending to be someone they weren’t to get content. Happens now because tiktok-ers don’t really think about stuff like that.
No. God’s Laws are the highest. And the crime of baby murder and selling baby body parts— does not pay. You cannot fool Almighty God. It is perfectly legitimate to use all means possible (so-called “lies and deceptions”) — just as the police do, to fool criminals, break up evil crime operations– arrest evil criminals– and rescue and save innocent lives in great danger. The police do this all the time.
They need a court’s approval and if they obtain info illegally it cannot be used in court.
Well, now that that’s over… how about some Taco Bell? Who’s buying?
That’s so gay.
I know that can be a difficult trial. Hope you can live the teachings of the Church but if not, please repent and go to Sacramental Confession. (Confession online does not count.)
God loves you.
How does 60 minutes get away with it?
I’ve met Mrs. Merritt, a Catholic mother and grandmother. She is a good woman, who has done good things. Let’s be honest, if this were not about abortion, she would’ve received a “slap on the wrist,” not a multi-million dollar penalty designed to ruin her life and that of her family. The $1.7 billion dollar abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, and its allies want to intimidate others into never revealing what Planned Parenthood really does. I went to journalism school back when investigative reporters were hailed as exemplary persons providing a public service by revealing important truths that would have otherwise remained secret. As has been noted, have any of CBS’s investigative reporters ever been punished? This case is about covering up abortion and not about an injustice done to Planned Parenthood. This punishment is a gross injustice.
Abortion is not illegal so there is no need to cover it up.
If you work at a facility and report illegal activity, there are whistleblower laws to protect you.
If you do not work at a facility and suspect illegal activity, report it to the proper authorities.
You do not gather evidence using illegal means.
Let the authorities handle it.
Is selling body parts illegal?
It depends on which ones.
What do the authorities do about selling the body parts that are illegal to sell?
Don’t know. Try google.
“Let the authorities handle it”….what exactly are they doing?
Then why isn’t Planned Parenthood transparent about selling baby body parts? Illegal or not, they’re covering it up. Do you believe all journalists who do undercover work should be punished equally? The “authorities” don’t “handle it,” it’s a civil lawsuit. The “authorities” dropped all criminal charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, because they didn’t commit crimes. This isn’t about crime. And, the penalty is clearly disproportionate. Can you name one CBS or other reporter ever fined for an undercover story? 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC correspondents and Gloria Steinem were praised for their undercover work. Steinem exposed exploitative working conditions in New York’s Playboy Club. She applied for a position at the club under an assumed name, got the job, and spent 11 days as a Playboy Bunny. Her article made her a celebrity and she faced no adverse financial consequences. This is about the abortion industry, not crime. Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden were simply courageous enough to reveal some of the abortion giant’s dirty secrets.
Gloria Steinem didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement. Merritt and Daleiden did.
I’m not sure that Gloria Steinem should be your moral compass.
What makes you think Steinem is my moral compass? I was giving examples of reporters doing undercover, investigative reporting and the clear double-standard.
As a retired peace officer, I know the difference between criminal offenses and civil litigation.
Those who value life aren’t asking for special treatment, simply equal treatment under the law.
And, if you’d like to do more than post anonymous critiques, please email me and we can discuss this case further. I’m open to learning more, are you?
You can reach me at dcnanderson@ephx.org
as a retired peace officer, you should understand the difference.
Gloria Steinham was not investigating a crime or suspected crime.
You were an arson investigator, right?
How would it be if a building burned down and someone reported that they thought it was arson.
And you got there and they were standing there with all the evidence they thought proved it was arson in their hands.
They went all through the building mucking things up and they even interviewed the perp.
What were your reaction be?
Investigative journalists should be wary of going undercover as they may find themselves in life-threatening situations or facing — with their news organizations — a potentially costly lawsuit, since many countries consider the right to privacy stronger than press freedom.
One notable example from the 1990s involved ABC News reporters who lied on their resumés in order to get hired by the US grocery store chain Food Lion. They subsequently videotaped mishandling and repackaging of expired meat in the grocery stores. After their report came out, however, the network was sued in what became a landmark press freedom case. While the fraud charges against the TV network were eventually rejected, the ABC News producers who conducted the undercover reporting were found guilty of trespassing and ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages. Eventually, a federal appeals court reversed part of that ruling and many of the fines.
From Global Investigative Journalism Network
Yes, they did commit crimes.
I don’t like PP and I do not like being put in a position to defend them because there is no defense for abortion.
They were investigated and the charges were found not to be true.
The fine Daleiden and Merritt got was to reimburse PP for the security they needed to add after the reports were put online and for their legal fees.
I am sure they had to document that in court.
I find it really disturbing that you claim you investigated arson for a living and you cannot give an unbiased assessment of this.
I think there are still charges against them in California.
Please, pro life people think they are above the law because abortion is so bad. Please pro-life people, obey the laws. You only hurt the cause when you break the laws.
The worst part is the Daleiden claims he had lawyers telling him he could get away with it.
You cannot break these laws and then claim to be a “citizen journalist.”
“Obey the laws”…does that include the Nuremberg Laws if you are a German citizen from 1933-1945?
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2010/winter/nuremberg.html
Deacon Craig, they never said they did not commit the crimes. They defended their behavior by saying they were citizen journalists.
I think it is always better if people discover things for themselves rather than argue online.
PP were investigated in several states.
What they were doing was not illegal because it is not illegal to ask for reimbursement for expenses when donating fetal tissue.
No one found that they altered procedures without patient consent to obtain tissue.
You can educate yourself on the facts and still support your friend.