(WASHINGTON, D.C.) On Monday, October 14, 2019 Project Veritas released the first of its Expose CNN series about the inner workings and candid observations of CNN employees and executives as captured with a hidden camera by CNN Insider Cary Poarch. The first report was followed by Part II in the series on Tuesday, October 15, 2019 where Cary had casual conversations inside CNN regarding the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President.
Today, we are releasing Part III exposing the network’s movement away from objective newsgathering and towards partisan advocacy.
According to James O’Keefe, President of Project Veritas, “CNN has made a conscious decision to focus almost exclusively on the impeachment of President Trump at the expense of covering legitimate news around the world.”
CNN Coverage Used to Be Different
According to CNN insider Cary Poarch, “I want to chase the facts, like the motto that CNN put out earlier this year, ‘the facts first,’ that’s what I want the news to be. That’s what it should be. That’s what it used to be.” It appears a number of CNN staffers agree:
Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: “…I hate seeing what we were and what we could be and what we’ve become. It’s just awful…I mean, we could be so much better than what we are…And the buck stops with him (Zucker).”
“I haven’t listened to a 9AM call in about 15 years. I just stopped,”complains Manager of Field Operations at CNN Patrick Davis, “Just, I can’t listen to it. It’s all bullshit. It’s all just a bunch of bullshit. And I wish that wasn’t the case.”
Scott Garber, Senior Field Engineer at CNN: “We used to cover news. We used to go out and do stories…But Trump is more important.”
Adia Jacobs, CNN Technical Operations Supervisor: “When Zucker took over it wasn’t until Trump that we ended up being all Trump all the time.”
Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator: “He (Zucker) basically said f**k all the other stories.”
Mike Brevna, Floor Manager at CNN:“It’s the Trump Network, dog. It’s like everything is all Trump…they not even thinking about anybody else. They sold themselves to the devil.”
Gerald Sisnette, Field Production Supervisor at CNN: “This is a story that’s not gonna go away…The only way this will go away is when he (Trump) dies. Hopefully soon.”
Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: “And you learn it in journalism school, we’re supposed to be middle of the road, that’s our job. Now it’s just infotainment is all it’s become. There is no true media news outlet.”
Undercover video reveals covering ‘conflict’ increases the network’s income (creating clicks) and CNN, under network President Jeff Zucker’s direction, has become the ‘all Trump all the time’ network.
Jeff Zucker, CNN President: “So, my point here is, I know there’s 7,000 impeachment stories that – Look, I am the one that’s saying we should just stay on impeachment, but when, you know, when a story of this magnitude comes up (referring to the story of alligators and snakes in a moat and shooting immigrants in the legs) and you can objectively say, you’re out of your mind. You should do it and say you’re out of your mind.”
Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator: “…conflict is what sells, nobody wants to hear one-minute canned statements…Because conflict drives clicks…create clicks, get more money.”
Poarch concludes: “I want CNN and any other outlet to basically return to what they once were, where hey, we tune in to get our facts. We can make up our minds left, right, center, whatever. Cool, and we go on with our lives. I don’t want anyone to basically, you know, be spun into believing or programmed into believing one way or the other. That’s not what I’m about and that’s why I’m coming forward.”
Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage brave insiders at these organizations to come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: PV Media
This week, Project Veritas released a three-part series exposing CNN. Millions of people have viewed and shared this content. And, yet, CNN and their leadership have remained silent so far.
Why is CNN so quiet?
I can tell you this, though.
Our next video (CNN Part 4) will be coming out next week. It features serious charges leveled against Senior Executives.
And when it comes out, CNN won’t be able to ignore it.
President Donald Trump and his 2020 campaign have just sent CNN President Jeff Zucker a letter indicating they intend to file legal action against CNN to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunction relief, reimbursement of legal costs and all other legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law. View the entire four page letter HERE.
Rick Saleeby, Senior Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, States Steve Brusk, CNN Politics Supervising Producer, Made ‘Advances’ on Female Employees During ‘Social Gatherings’ and Would “Put His Arm Around Them, Try and Touch Their Leg.”
Saleeby Believes That Steve Brusk is “Protected by Certain People…Like Other Higher Ups” Within CNN.
Rick Saleeby Recalls Incident with a Young Female Colleague: “She Had a Skirt on. I Could See the Hand. I Like Grab Her. It Looked Like I Was Being the Assaulter Because I Grabbed Her So Aggressively…to Keep Her from Him.”
Saleeby: “He Had Already Been Accused of the Things Prior… Which I Found Out…”
Saleeby Acknowledges the Gravity of the Situation: “I’ll Tell You This, In the Climate That’s Going Now, He Definitely Would Have Been Fired.”
Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, Says It is “Open Knowledge” That a Female Colleague Got a Job Working with Steve Brusk That “Appeared Out of Nowhere,” “…It Was Never Posted Online…”
Neville Refers to Allegedly Untoward Behavior from Brusk With the Young Female Employee: “…I Mean, He Emails All of Us, But He Would Email and Was Very Friendly to Her. And Then She Just Like Got a Job Like Working on His Team and She Was Like, Oh, It’s Hush-Hush. The Job Was Never Posted Anywhere.”
Neville: “…I Just Thought It Was a Little Strange.”
Christian Sierra, Media Coordinator at CNN, Continues: “That’s Unethical…That’s Unethical.”
Steve Brusk Tells Project Veritas Journalists to Speak with CNN’s PR Team About Sexual Misconduct Allegations; When Approached in DC, Refuses to Watch Footage.
Rick Saleeby and Jake Tapper Refuse to Speak with Project Veritas Journalists in DC When Approached for Comment.
Project Veritas Calls CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office for Comment on Last Week’s Multiple Releases Regarding Anti-Trump Bias in the Network; Zucker’s Administrative Assistant Replies: “We Don’t Have Any Comment, Thanks for Calling.”
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Last week, Project Veritas began releasing #ExposeCNN videos showing bias against the President, certain Democratic Presidential candidates, as well as the dissatisfaction of several longtime employees with the network’s current state.
Today, we are releasing Part IV exposing CNN’s attitude towards sexual harassment and assault allegedly happening within the network.
Steve Brusk Has Allegedly Gotten Away With Sexual Misconduct
When speaking about CNN Politics Supervising Producer and White House Unit Supervising Producer/Coverage Manager, Steve Brusk, ‘The Lead with Jake Tapper’ Senior Producer Rick Saleeby said: “…he would like make advances if there was a social gathering and they were drunk… Put his arms around them, try and touch their leg. Try and build up emails to the level where he would get flirty and inappropriate.”
According to Saleeby, there was a social gathering where a twenty-one-year-old woman was getting drunk and Steve Brusk allegedly saw an opportunity to make sexual advances on her. Saleeby says: “So, like, there is this girl that was twenty-one. She’s actually a good friend of mine. She had just gotten hired after being an intern…And she was getting…There was a going away party for a co-worker. We were all having a really good time…She was very well liked. We were getting drunk. He started like staying close to her…Arm around her.”
Saleeby went on to describe the scene with more details: “She had a skirt on. I could see the hand. I like grab her. It looked like I was being the assaulter because I grabbed her so aggressive…To keep her from him. Like go around her and go Come over here and looked at him because I could flatten him…It was like…I wouldn’t do it because then I would be the one who got fired…He would have absolutely been like ‘get in a cab with me later.’”
Saleeby states that he found out later that there had allegedly been prior accusations against Brusk: “Because she was drunk. He had his arm around her. And in the setting like any other time ever, they barely speak…But he was like, trying to like, touch her thigh…He had already been accused of the things prior…Which I found out…Which I found out later.”
“People Have Gotten Away With a Lot” at CNN, Suggests Staffer
Rick Saleeby admits: “I’ll tell you this, in the climate that’s going now, he definitely would have been fired…The whole “Me-Too” movement. People are afraid to do sh*t…I mean he has been at CNN for like twenty years…People have gotten away with a lot of sh*t.”
In another instance, Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator said: “I will just say this, because this is open knowledge, it’s not like a Me Too thing, but there was this other girl who was like an NA (News Assistant), I feel like we basically had the same level of experience…And a job just kind of like appeared out of nowhere…And it was never posted online, and this girl always worked pretty closely with Steve, like all of us on the desk would help Steve out with stuff…But this other girl works pretty closely with him and he would email her, I mean, he emails all of us, but he would email and was very friendly to her. And then she just like got a job like working on his team and she was like, oh it’s hush-hush. The job was never posted anywhere. I was like, what is it?…I just thought it was a little strange…Was there an agreement? What happened there?…Like I’m saying, that’s open knowledge, but it just kind of like goes along with what he said.”
In the same conversation, Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator responded to Neville’s story: “That’s unethical. That’s unethical.”
Steve Brusk is Allegedly Protected by ‘Higher Ups’ Within the Network
When Rick Saleeby was asked why no action has been taken against Steve Brusk’s sexual misconduct, Saleeby responded: “…he is protected by certain people there…Value him or like him. I don’t even know, I can’t…Like other higher ups there. This is not an unusual thing in companies.”
Project Veritas Reaches Out to CNN Employees for Comment
As a result of the audio and video recording acquired by Veritas journalists and CNN insider Cary Poarch, Veritas journalists approached Steve Brusk, Jake Tapper and Rick Saleeby in Washington, D.C., in order to ask for comment on our Expose CNN series and the Brusk allegations. Project Veritas also reached out to Matt Dornic, Vice President of Communications and Digital Partnerships at CNN. Neither Jake Tapper nor Rick Saleeby commented, but Steve Brusk said:
“I, I, I don’t. Um but uh, I’ll let our PR people talk to you about that”…“No, sir. I’m happy to put you in touch with our PR people.”
Call to CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office
In an attempt to get comment from Jeff Zucker on the released materials, Project Veritas received the following response from Zucker’s administrative assistant in a phone call: “We don’t have any comment, thanks for calling.”
We need your help as we continue to hold CNN accountable. If CNN Politics Supervising Producer Steve Brusk has sent you inappropriate messages or behaved inappropriately around you, tell us about it. We will protect your identity. Email firstname.lastname@example.org or send us an encrypted Telegram message at 914-653-3110.
Project Veritas intends to continue its broader investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage the public to push for transparency within these Media organizations in order to get to the truth about any potential cover-ups of misconduct or inappropriate activity.
CNN President Jeff Zucker refuses to answer questions on #ExposeCNN when confronted by Project Veritas reporter Eric Spracklen today in the Atlanta airport. No comment on Preisdent Trump’s threat to sue the network for bias and his employees allegations of sexual misconduct by Steve Brusk.
“I’ve Had This Story for Three Years… (ABC) Would Not Put It on The Air” says Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor Amy Robach.“It Was Unbelievable… We Had – Clinton, We Had Everything…”
Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn’t Get On.”
Amy Robach Describes How She Interviewed a Woman Who Had the Courage to Come Forward “Years” Ago About Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us.”
Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her: “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story”
Robach: “Now it’s All Coming Out … I Freaking Had All Of It…”
(New York, NY)Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.
Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”
She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”
Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and Disgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”
Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage that Brave insiders at these organizations come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.
Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.
This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.
To my fellow man:
I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public. I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information whether it be financial or otherwise and will always decline. When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did. Anger, confusion and sadness. I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best in all of us.
To my fellow ABC News employees:
I’ve walked the halls experiencing similar feelings we are all having right now. All of you regardless of your own personal differences in one form or another do an outstanding job. I sincerely enjoy working with each and every one of you and will continue to do so throughout our careers.
To those wrongfully accused:
It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company. I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else. The public outcry, from coast to coast, of all people, creeds, and political affiliations, is clear. I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers. For neither you, nor I, have done anything wrong.
To Amy Robach:
You are the only person deserving of an apology. I am most certainly sorry. Not for my actions or for this to center around you, but for what is clear to have happened. When I first stumbled across this, my initial reaction was outrage. But this soon turned towards empathy. I can not imagine doing all the hard work to only have it shelved. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is the truth that some of us have endured many hardships in this industry. From the spiking of stories regarding prominent and powerful people in this world, and to yours. I believe you are an outstanding reporter and have done such tremendous work in the community as well.
To ABC News:
I sit right here with you all in complete shock. I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled. Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek-and-destroy. Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we are all a sport. I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism. We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history, its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with. How lost we are… yearning to be found. I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet else would have probably shelved this as well. I thank all of them, and James, for seeking truth.
We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistakes and redemption.
In a decision that showed the influence of the abortion industry, a Federal Court in California found David Daleiden guilty and awarded Planned Parenthood approximately $2.2 million for Daleiden’s work exposing the abortion industry, including the potentially illegal sale of aborted baby parts.
Planned Parenthood did not contest the accuracy of Daleiden’s undercover video reports. They sued him for trespass and other alleged illegal methods he and his colleagues used to conduct the investigation.
Prior to the jury deciding the case, the judge ordered the jury to include in its verdict that Daleiden had, in fact, trespassed. This, coupled with some evidentiary rulings that went against Daleiden, left him in a precarious situation with respect to what the jury could rely on to decide his fate.
Some journalists and supporters of Project Veritas have described this verdict as a blow to undercover journalism. That’s an opportunistic, and wrong, conclusion. This civil lawsuit was never about undercover journalism. The jury verdict represents a simple affirmation of basic law: when you sign a document agreeing that you will or won’t do something, you are bound by it. The allegations against Daleiden and his associates include that they signed some event applications and Non-Disclosure Agreements which allegedly prevented Daleiden from conducting his undercover investigation. The jury found that Daleiden had made agreements in those applications and NDAs that he violated.
Project Veritas undercover journalists will continue their intrepid pursuit of the truth unencumbered by this decision. Project Veritas journalists do not sign binding documents that purport to prohibit them from accomplishing their goal. Courts and juries will have a difficult time looking past a written agreement to keep things secret, regardless of the subject matter exposed by the undercover journalist. People who want to keep things secret have third parties sign written agreements to keep things secret.
Various states threatened and squeezed the Daleiden defendants with criminal prosecution. The result of these prosecutorial threats was that the defendants had to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned in civil depositions. The result was that, in the civil case, the jury was allowed to draw an adverse inference that the defendants did something wrong and this clearly negatively impacted the defense and influenced the jury and the verdict.
Project Veritas has never asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to any questions posed by those who have sued us. Project Veritas runs from nothing, stands by its reporting, and abides by the law. We have been sued eight times and have not lost a single case. Victory has come through an extremely rare Directed Verdict, through Summary Judgement, through a Motion to Dismiss and through two Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“Anti-SLAPP”) Motions.
Nevertheless, we recognize the real injustice here is the unequal application of the law. This case is, undoubtedly, ideologically motivated. David Daleiden would be a national hero if he had done the same thing to an organization supporting animal cruelty, and California prosecutors would have exercised discretion, favoring the public’s right to know the facts he brought to light. Imagine if he exposed puppies being aborted and their body parts sold illegally. The verdict against Daleiden for investigating the abortion of human babies and the sale of baby parts clearly demonstrates the power of the abortion industry. This case was never about the legality or importance of undercover journalism.
Peter Breen, Counsel for David Daleiden, said he didn’t do this, “for profit or for personal gain. He did it for the paramount public purpose of letting Americans know” what was going on. “The Planned Parenthood lawyers? They stated that the case is about ‘protecting the brand.’ But what is it that hurt the brand? The very words spoken by Planned Parenthood personnel on those videos is what hurt the brand.”
We must never forget that, in a democratic republic, the right to know information is of paramount importance. Justice is supposed to be blind, but we sadly we live in a country where, increasingly, there is lack of equal justice under the law as it pertains to the FirstAmendment. This is particularly so in California where these types of investigations are needed more than ever.
This verdict will, undoubtedly, be appealed on many different grounds, so this case is far from over.
(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund appeared in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit yesterday to challenge Section 99 of Massachusetts law. This is a law that broadly restricts any sort of undercover recording.
PVA argues that, as a result of this law, the American public will miss out on newsworthy information derived from such recordings. Further, PVA states that Section 99 infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights.
There are eleven states that believe it is the legislature’s responsibility to provide some level of privacy protection in conversations, but Massachusetts is the only state to fully apply privacy protections without consideration for the citizen’s right to secretly record. PVA argued that Massachusetts, like those eleven states, should narrow its law.
PVA has asked the court to strike down the Section 99 law ‘facially’, that is to declare it entirely void. PVA wants the court to allow the Massachusetts legislature a chance to go back to the drafting table and write a new law that complies with the First Amendment.
According to PVA’s attorney Ben Barr’s observation of the oral argument, it appeared that all of the judges (including former US Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Souter) expressed real skepticism about the Constitutionality of the Massachusetts law—referring to it as “sweeping too broadly” in several of their questions.
Ben Barr also observed that the specific line of questioning examines the state’s interest in securing privacy against the means the state employs to secure that privacy. In this case, an outright ban is simply too suppressive of speech and narrower tools could be used to protect truly private conversations.
In addition, the judges hinted that individuals were free to guard their own privacy—such as removing a discussion to a truly private place—instead of needing a law that simply prohibits newsgathering of items disclosed in public.
Here are a few of the exchanges between PVA Attorney Ben Barr, Judge Barron, and Judge Selya:
Ben Barr:Massachusetts makes a mockery of the most effective form of newsgathering, undercover journalism, by denying citizens the right to be able to go out into public, and to be able to gather information in the most effective way possible, that is, secret audio recording.
Judge Barron:What do you mean by “public?”
Ben Barr:I mean a place in particular where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. It brings me to the truly exceptional nature of Section 99.
Judge Barron:Just so I get it straight with the idea that everybody in this courtroom right now would have a First Amendment right to record these proceedings?
Judge Barron:That’s your position?
Judge Barron:Do you have a narrower position?
[laughter among those present]
Judge Selya: Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the privacy of conversations. Everyone has some sort of right to the privacy of their conversations, full stop. And you can disagree with that as a matter of policy, but you’ve got to figure out why that’s wrong as a matter of Constitutional law…
Ben Barr:Primarily, it amounts to the tailoring and overbreadth issue, Judge Selya, while there is a legitimate governmental interest in protecting conversational privacy and 11 states have worked out test to do that. On the other end of the Constitutional equation is a right to be able to acquire information in public and report on that to the American people. So, being able to record a bribe occurring with a police officer on a…
Judge Selya:But Massachusetts is talking not only about governmental privacy, they’re talking about the privacy of all participants in these conversations, which typically take place between a government official and a private citizen.
Ben Barr:Yes, and actually as was noted by Judge Barron earlier, it is entirely capable that government officials and individuals are able to safeguard their own privacy. If they have a confidential conversation, or an informant, they’re able meet in a private place. We are not alleging the right to be able to invade doctors’ offices or police stations…
Judge Barron:Yeah, but you are saying that if I think that I’ve taken precautions, that I sometimes might sit on a bench in the park and speak in what I think is in pretty confidential tones with someone else, and you’re saying but I’m at risk of someone having a recording device, and if I didn’t notice it, that can then be sent all over the place, right?
Judge Selya:I want you to note that even in his hypotheticals, Judge Barron sees himself sitting on a bench.
Judge Selya also addressed Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, Eric Haskell:
Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell:Meeting with a confidential informant, if it’s done in public, what’s wrong with that being recorded? If the police officer wants that meeting to be truly confidential, the police officer can control where the meeting is held. Easy enough to hold it in private.
Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell:You’re saying that if John Doe comes along, sees a police officer conversing with a politician, for example, they both have their backs turned to him, he holds out, in plain view of everybody, a tape recorder and turns it on, or a cell phone, and turns on the recording function, alright? They have their backs turned, but it’s in plain view to anyone who wants to walk. Everyone in the Boston Common sees it, except maybe the two people who were talking, and you’re saying that is, or isn’t, a violation of the statute?
The ACLU had a more limited vision of how to tackle the Massachusetts recording law.
Representing the ACLU was Jessie Rossman, who said that “They focus exclusively on police officers, who, unlike other officials, are armed by the state and have the authority to take people into custody.”
After the hearing, Ben Barr said:
“We were pleased that the court held the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to accountability. This law is an outright ban on the most effective form of newsgathering—undercover journalism—and deprives the public of important information. It is difficult to imagine it surviving today’s review before the First Circuit.”
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that citizens possess the power to hold accountable those in power. In 2020, using smartphones and digital recording devices to uncover political hypocrisy and self-dealing is the most effective means to do so and should be protected by the First Amendment.”
Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ Constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their First Amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.
On Wednesday January 8th, 2020 Project Veritas Action Fund Will Present Oral Argument in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Support of the First Amendment.
In March of 2016, Project Veritas Action Fund (PVA) Challenged Massachusetts’ Recording Law in Order to Cement Constitutional Protection for Undercover Recording.
In Federal District Court, PVA Won the Right to Secretly Record Government Officials Doing Their Work in Public.
The Decision in PVA v. Conley (now Rollins)* Became the First Case in United States History to Hold That Secretly Recording Government Officials Conducting the Public’s Business in Public is Protected by the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Has Appealed the District Court’s Decision Granting PVA the Right to Secretly Record Public Officials Doing Their Work in Public.
PVA is Challenging the District Court’s Denial of the Right to Record Non-Public Officials When They Have No Expectation of Privacy.
(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund made First Amendment history in December of 2018 when the Massachusetts law prohibiting undercover recording of public officials was ruled unconstitutional: “[T]he Court holds that [Massachusetts law] may not constitutionally prohibit the secret audio recording of government officials…”
At issue was Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (“Section 99”), which criminalizes the willful “interception”* of any “communication.”
The battle began two years ago, when PVA filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Massachusetts law prohibiting secret recordings of public officials and citizens was unconstitutional. Today, 39 states allow filming without both parties consenting. Massachusetts is one of eleven states that restrict undercover journalists from recording without consent.
Even with PVA’s initial victory, the case is not yet over. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has appealed the court’s ruling that resulted in PVA’s initial victory.
The court said it did not have enough information to rule on the constitutionality of secretly recording private citizens. So PVA appealed.
The PVA Team (represented by Ben Barr) will be attending the hearing in Boston on January 8th, 2020, which is open for the public to attend. A decision from the Court of Appeals is not expected to be delivered for several months.
Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their 1st amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.
*This case has gone from PVA v. Conley to PVA v. Rollins due to the change in the District Attorney for Suffolk County office holder.