The Persecution of Planned Parenthood’s Exposers
Selective prosecution. Whether you agree with them or not, if they are being prosecuted, why were these not: "California seems not to have much of a problem with undercover recordings when they are made in service to causes near and dear to progressive hearts. In 2015, the group Mercy for Animals, which routinely produces undercover recordings of food production facilities, released a video featuring the cruel treatment of chickens at the Fresno-based Foster Farms poultry slaughterhouse. The slickly-produced video was released to the public and was even presented by “The Price Is Right” host Bob Barker. The tapes led to an investigation by the local police and eventually resulted in misdemeanor animal cruelty charges against one the facility’s workers. No charges were filed against Mercy for Animals. There’s no doubt that both the organization and its political allies on the left would have dubbed it persecution if they were. A 2013 New York Times report on an increase in state-level legal restrictions on undercover photography at livestock farms to combat “ecological terrorism” featured animal activist groups sounding alarms over the violation of their civil liberties. Among them was Mercy for Animals’ general counsel Vandhana Bala. “It has definitely had a chilling effect on our ability to conduct investigations,” he said of laws passed in states like Utah, Missouri, and Iowa that makes it harder to produce undercover exposés. Further, California would have likely been within their rights to put former Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s mistress, V. Stiviano, before a grand jury for illicitly recording the businessman and releasing those tapes to the press in 2014. In those well-publicized tapes, Sterling made a series of abhorrently racist comments about African-Americans including Earvin “Magic” Johnson, a figure so beloved in the Golden State that he appears on their travel and tourism advertisements. The tapes resulted in Sterling’s permanent banishment from the NBA. Stiviano’s attorney told the Los Angeles Times that those recordings did not violate California’s “two-party consent” statute because he was recorded making racist remarks “by mutual agreement.” That was apparently good enough for California’s Department of Justice. And after all, the true villain in this matter had already been identified."