From the Texas Tribune: Charges Dismissed Against Anti-Abortion Activists Who Made Video

Lot's to chew on here.

Activists on the left and the right should celebrate the decisions since it makes it easier for them to shine a spotlight on the inner workings of organizations they think necessary.

But there are concerns that the elected district attorney felt political heat due to the coming election, which led to the decision to drop the charges.

- Click here for the article.

Criminal charges against the anti-abortion activists behind undercover recordings of a Houston Planned Parenthood facility were dismissed Tuesday.

David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, the videographers who infiltrated Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, had been charged with tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony charge that carries up to 20 years in prison. A court clerk confirmed that the Harris County district attorney's office filed the motion to dismiss the case against Daleiden and Merritt.

Harris County DA Devon Anderson said in a statement that Texas limits what can be investigated after a grand jury term gets extended, which happened in this case.
"In light of this and after careful research and review, this office dismissed the indictments," Anderson said.

Daleiden and Merritt were accused of using fake California driver’s licenses to enter the Planned Parenthood facilities where they recorded staff discussing the costs of providing fetal tissue for research.

The tampering with a governmental record count was the last remaining charge against the activists. A Harris County judge in June tossed a second charge against Daleiden — a misdemeanor charge for offering to sell or buy fetal tissue — because of a technical problem with the indictment filed by prosecutors.

Daleiden’s team had asked a judge to dismiss his indictments, alleging they were a result of improper proceedings by prosecutors and that the grand jury — originally asked to investigate Planned Parenthood, not the videographers — exceeded its authority.

On Political Violence and Violent Speech

The Tucson shooting has kicked up a firestorm over incendiary political speech -- especially speech with violent undertones (if not overtones) -- and whether it is responsible for pushing the Arizona shooter over the edge. If so, is there culpability on the part of the speakers, or are they shielded by the First Amendment to say whatever they choose.

This is not a new controversy, just the latest iteration. It almost always lies at the heart of the speech disputes that wind their way up to the Supreme Court. Fall 2010 students studied the Westboro Baptist Church case (they are very pleased with the shooting by the way) as an example. We should be prepared to discuss whether there ought to be limits to political speech, but also if there are to be limits, how one determines what they are and how they are to implemented in a way that does not make the solution worse than the disease.

Here's some worthwhile debate on the subject.
Should we blame technology?