California governor considers bill banning undercover videos

What Planned Parenthood cannot get in relief from a California court, it may get from the state legislature.

Despite opposition from a wide and unlikely coalition of media companies, civil rights advocates, and pro-life groups, the state legislature last month passed a bill criminalizing the dissemination of secretly recorded conversations with medical personnel—an investigative tactic long used by undercover journalists and activists.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) drafted the legislation following the release last year of videos recorded secretly at Planned Parenthood facilities in California and Texas. The new penalties might help shield the abortion giant from future undercover investigations, but opponents say the bill blatantly violates the First Amendment.

AB 1671 now awaits Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

In California it already is illegal to record a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved. AB 1671, sponsored by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat, criminalizes the public dissemination of secret recordings. If signed into law, undercover journalism and social justice activism will come with a high price—up to $10,000 in fines and a year in prison.

California media outlets, usually aligned with the Democrat-controlled legislature when it comes to abortion, find themselves at odds with a group they typically support, according to the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA).

“Unfortunately, the proponents are pushing this legislation without regard for its constitutionality, or its broader consequences—the criminalization of legitimate newsgathering and reporting,” the group said in a statement opposing the bill.

Media outlets charge the bill conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and will stymie all undercover journalism, not just the work of activists. Other opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union, Animal Legal Defense Fund, the California Catholic Conference, California Broadcasters Association, and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Amendments approved by the state Senate came late and did little to assuage opposition. Senators limited criminal prosecution to the person making a recording. As originally drafted, the bill cast a wide net, criminally implicating any person who facilitated a recording.

Another amendment allows for distribution of a recording by anyone other than the person who made it. But the amendment language is vague and could still be used to hold broadcasters and newspaper publishers criminally liable, according to CNPA.

AB 1671 also allows for civil damages. Parties targeted by any future undercover recordings can sue “for the harm created by broad dissemination over the internet,” according to a legislative analysis.

That language mirrors the civil suit Planned Parenthood filed last year against pro-life activist David Daleiden, whose recordings prompted the push for AB 1671. Planned Parenthood is asking for compensatory, punitive, and statutory penalties and damages for videos that showed its executives and abortionists discussing prices for aborted babies’ body parts.

Pro-life advocates say the bill is an obvious attempt to chill future efforts by Daleiden and other self-described “citizen journalists” who would employ similar tactics in California.

Gomez did not respond to questions about the constitutional challenges to his Planned Parenthood-sponsored bill and his close ties to the abortion provider. Since his election to the assembly in 2012, Gomez has earned a 100 percent approval rating from PPAC, and raked in $13,500 in campaign contributions from the abortion group.