Bartnicki v. Vopper

During the 2000-2001 Supreme Court term, the Court took on the Bartnicki v. Vopper case. In this case the defendant was held liable for broadcasting a conversation between and labor official and people apart of a union about the teachers’ that were on strike. They argued that the conversation, which was taped, was illegally obtained and violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In the end the Court said that the station in which the conversation aired was not liable because the station itself did not illegally obtain the conversation. This shows that even if a third party disobeyed the law, the media defendant are not liable for that action.

In Justice William Rehnquist dissent he notes that this would have a chilling effect. "The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of "public concern," an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court's decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day."

I find this case very interesting in the fact that is something that I feel like is extremely relevant. In todays’ society there is a never ending steam of online information. We see this everyday with such trivial things like the celebrity leaked photo scandal, and even things extreme as the ISIS videos. There is always a third party in which the information is being shared, however, I agree that the third party should not be held responsible for how that information was sent to them. To take the issue to almost an extreme level we can look at the videos that media has shown us regarding ISIS. There was a tragic video that was posted showing an American citizen being beheaded. This video was plastered everywhere online and talked about on even news outlet. While the acts in the video were not only illegal, but also extremely graphic, the media that published this video cannot be held accountable for what was done. While, this again, is an extreme to the situation it is something that we can see in our daily lives. To take it to less of an extreme, we can also draw connections to the recent Donald Starling situation. While what he said was secretly recorded, he has no case in trying to prosecute the media that aired the tape. What Justice William says in his dissent could not be truer. If we are to say that the third party is liable, than no one will feel safe to say what they want.

 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/supreme-court-cases

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/restrictions-on-time-place-or-matter-of-expression/bartnicki-v-vopper/