Dear Anons,
Not long ago, Massachusetts law prohibited and criminalized the undercover recording of conversations. This was a blatant intrusion on your First Amendment rights.
Undercover recording for newsgathering and reporting purposes is at the very heart of what Project Veritas does.
This is why Project Veritas Action Fund(“PVA”) began the fight to sue the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and challenge the constitutionality of the law that prohibited undercover audio recordings, known as “Section 99”.
Christmas came early for PVA in December of 2018 when the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts declared Section 99 unconstitutional as it related to secretly recording government officials performing their duties in public.
Chief United States District Judge Patti B. Saris concluded that:
“Section 99 may not constitutionally prohibit the secret audio recording of government officials, including law enforcement officials, performing their duties in public spaces, subject to reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions.”
When the initial ruling came down last year I stated:
“Project Veritas has made First Amendment history. With the summary judgement in this case being entered in our favor, PVA v Conley becomes the first case in United States history to hold that secretly recording government officials is protected by the First Amendment.”
While this was a monumental victory for PVA and the First Amendment, the Court unfortunately dismissed another claim we made that recording nonpublic officials was also protected by the First Amendment. PVA has appealed this ruling, arguing that recording ordinary people for newsgathering purposes must be protected.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has also appealed the ruling that went in our favor. According to the website Law360:
“Boston District Attorney Rachael Rollins, now a defendant in this lawsuit, “called on the First Circuit to revive Massachusetts' blanket ban on secret recording, saying the lower court ruling could harm unwitting third parties.”
This battle is far from over, and Veritas is on the front lines. With our appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Project Veritas is effectively challenging the notion of arbitrary state restrictions on legitimate newsgathering.
The First Amendment plays a central role in preserving this American republic. It is the key anchor for keeping public institutions accountable to the public. But when government imposes barriers to the newsgathering process, accountability declines and the free flow of information is hindered.
As Winston Churchill said “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”, and that is exactly what we are doing. Project Veritas refuses to back down from this fight.
Be Brave,
Signature
James O'Keefe III
President & CEO
Sort: Top
[–] 20810683? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Doesn't Amazon's Alexa record things? It was revealed that they do listen in 'for research and development' purposes.
[–] 20814131? ago
Anon posted this on endchan; my reply is below. https://endchan.net/qanonresearch/res/8607.html#9000
.
Transparency vs Anonymity
This Mass. law against secret videoing is an attack on free speech; if it stands, other blue states will try the same thing.
Interestingly, Project V and Q group have a lot in common. Both rely on the protection of the right to retain anonymity in communications. Their lawyer, as anons know, is Benjamin Barr. Here's the first line of a recent article he wrote:
Anonymous political speech has been the scorn of entrenched powers and the saving balm of emerging voices throughout English and American history. In its simplest terms, anonymous speech is communication that does not identify the speaker or identifies a synonymous persona. Although for some, anonymous political speech is inherently negative, its value remains of highest constitutional import.
http://www.uwyo.edu/law/_files/docs/wy%20law%20review/v14%20n1/barr-klein.pdf
.
"Although for some, anonymous political speech is inherently negative"
Wow! major implications here, some questions to consider:
- If anon speech is inherently negative, what's to stop DS from prohibiting boards like ours in the future?
- Why is it ok to have cameras at every intersection but not ok to record public conversations?
- Why is it ok to demand POTUS transparency about tax records, phone calls with world leaders?
- When is transparency good?
- When is it a weapon to use against a free citizenry?