James O'Keefe

2021-07-10 02:56:26 Six Whistleblowers through PV are About to speak on the main stage at CPAC - Dallas. Tune in! https://live.conservative.org/?utm_source=cpac&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=homepage Open / Comment

2021-07-07 22:16:36 Open / Comment

2021-07-07 22:16:00 RETRACTOOOOOOO... Open / Comment

2021-07-07 20:35:37 “If large numbers of organizations embrace sting attacks, our social fabric and sense of community will fade, and our country will be worse off for the practice.” …. Here is my response to that:

At the heart of this issue is something deeper than recording human interaction. That something predates modern technology and is as old as human interaction itself—social trust issues. Individuals discriminate as to whom they choose to trust. There is no formal duty to keep confidential what someone voluntarily shares. False friends, moles, and spies have a well-documented existence—“Et tu, Brute?”— long before the advent of recording devices. Prior to electronic recording, conversations could be transcribed or jotted down in the reporter’s notebook or even recollected after the fact. A California count acknowledged in a 1968 case against Time magazine that the “successful practice” of investigative reporting] “long antecedes the invention of miniature cameras and electronic devices.”

The risk of betrayal and exposure—a trust risk—has not choked off all social exchange. Rather, from time immemorial individuals gauged relationship strength before deciding whether and how much information to disclose to another. In most such cases, it is against one’s own self-interest to betray the confidence of another. Also, the right to record when one party is present is very closely tied to the right to speak or even to take contemporaneous notes about what one sees and hears. As 60 minutes producer Don Hewitt quipped, “People committing malfeasance don’t have any right to privacy….What are we saying -- that Upton Sinclair shouldn’t have smuggled his pencil in?” Open / Comment

2021-07-07 20:31:58 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/07/07/why-secret-video-recordings-are-damaging-for-democracy/ where Brookings attacks secret recordings (and makes a factually untrue statement about Veritas) Open / Comment

2021-07-07 04:22:02 https://mobile.twitter.com/stillgray/status/1412564865420386306 Open / Comment

2021-07-07 02:02:56 TWITTER LEGAL VICTORY: O’Keefe Defeats Twitter Attempt to Transfer Case to Friendly Court

Manhattan federal court ruled to “remand” the case to the New York Supreme Court

#ExposeTwitter

BE SURE TO LET JACK KNOW, CLICK HERE TO TWEET THIS VICTORY OUT FOR US: https://ctt.ec/fBAhM Open / Comment

2021-07-03 17:12:30 “But over time the actual malice standard has evolved from a high bar to recovery into an effective immunity from liability…. It seems that publishing without inves- tigation, fact-checking, or editing has become the optimal legal strategy. See id., at 778–779. Under the actual malice regime as it has evolved, “ignorance is bliss.” Id., at 778. Combine this legal incentive with the business incentives fostered by our new media world and the deck seems stacked against those with traditional (and expensive) jour- nalistic standards—and in favor of those who can dissemi-nate the most sensational information as efficiently as pos- sible without any particular concern for truth. See ibid. What started in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occa- sional falsehood to ensure robust reporting by a compara- tive handful of print and broadcast outlets has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable. As Sullivan’s actual malice standard has come to apply in our new world, it’s hard not to ask whether it now even “cut[s] against the very values underlying the decision.”


The above speaks to how rare of a win it is that we prevailed on Motion to Dismiss in PV v NYT, and why the NYT is proudly proclaiming they did not ask for comment in our case. Open / Comment

2021-07-03 17:05:31 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-1063_986b.pdf Open / Comment

2021-07-03 17:05:14 Gorsuch calls for NYT v Sullivan to be revisited: Open / Comment