Bartnicki v. Vopper

Background

A union negotiator and the union president spoke by cellphone about contentious labor talks. An unknown person secretly intercepted and recorded that call. A local activist found a tape in his mailbox and gave it to a radio commentator, who broadcast the conversation. The teachers sued under federal and Pennsylvania wiretapping laws, alleging the media and the intermediary knew or had reason to know the tape was illegally intercepted and sought damages.

Reasoning

The Court assumed the interception was intentional and that the broadcasters had reason to know the tape came from an unlawful interception. It treated the wiretapping disclosure ban as a content-neutral law but emphasized that the broadcasters lawfully obtained the tape and that the conversation concerned a matter of public interest. Balancing privacy against free speech, the majority concluded that publishing truthful information about public affairs carries strong First Amendment protection and outweighed the privacy interest in this case.

Real world impact

As a result, the ruling makes it harder to hold the media civilly liable for publishing unlawfully intercepted material when (1) the publisher did not participate in the interception, (2) acquired the information lawfully, and (3) the material is about public concerns. The Court limited its holding to these special facts, so enforcement of disclosure laws may still be upheld in different circumstances involving purely private matters or guilty press conduct.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer concurred but stressed a narrow rule confined to these facts, especially because the recording included a threat. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, warning the decision weakens privacy protections and defends the statutes as reasonable deterrents to interception.