Bartnicki v. Vopper

Last updated

Bartnicki v. Vopper
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2000
Decided May 21, 2001
Full case nameBartnicki et al. v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al.
Citations532 U.S. 514 ( more )
121 S. Ct. 1753; 149 L. Ed. 2d 787; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3815
Case history
Prior200 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1260(2000).
Holding
A broadcaster cannot be held civilly liable for publishing documents or tapes illegally procured by a third-party.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceBreyer, joined by O'Connor
DissentRehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case relieving a media defendant of liability for broadcasting a taped conversation of a labor official talking to other union members about a teachers' strike. [1]

Contents

At trial, the parties stipulated that the taped conversation had been recorded in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Nevertheless, the Court held the broadcast was legal.

Background

In 1992 and 1993 the Pennsylvania State Education Association, a teachers' union, was engaged in collective bargaining negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School Board. In May 1993, the union's chief negotiator, Gloria Bartnicki, was surreptitiously recorded speaking by phone with union president Anthony Kane. Referring to the collective bargaining negotiations, which had grown contentious, Kane said: "If they're not gonna move for three percent, we're gonna have to go to their, their homes. . . . To blow off their front porches, we'll have to do some work on some of those guys. (PAUSES). Really, uh, really and truthfully because this is, you know, this is bad news. (UNDECIPHERABLE)." [2]

The intercepted conversation was ultimately broadcast by Fredrick Vopper, a talk radio host. Vopper had received a tape of the conversation from Jack Yocum, who was president of a local taxpayers' association and a vocal opponent of the union. Yocum, in turn, claimed to have obtained the tape from an anonymous tipster. Thus, the identity of the individual who carried out the initial illegal act of wiretapping was not known. This presented the Court with a novel issue: Whether enforcing anti-wiretapping statutes against individuals who merely disseminate material illegally obtained by others runs afoul of the First Amendment, which protects the right of individuals to engage in speech on matters of public concern. [1]

Decision

The Court held the radio station not liable because the radio station itself had done nothing illegal to obtain the tape. The case is often used to stand for the proposition that media defendants are not liable for broadcast material even if a third party violated the law to obtain it.

Dissenting opinion

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissenting opinion, was concerned with the effect that the decision would have on speech. He noted that 40 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had laws prohibiting knowingly disclosing (publishing) illegally intercepted electronic communications. He also argued that that disclosure would produce a chilling effect in the creation of initial, albeit electronic, speech:

The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as 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. [3]

Implications

While the Court declared the relevant wiretapping statutes unconstitutional as applied, the precedential value of the case remains unclear. Under one reading of the majority opinion, courts should apply "strict scrutiny" in reviewing restrictions on the dissemination of illegally obtained information whenever that information touches on a matter of public concern. [4] This expansive standard would provide robust First Amendment protection to media outlets engaging in the publication of stolen materials. Application of such a rule might, for instance, insulate controversial whistleblower entities like WikiLeaks from liability for publishing government secrets. A much narrower reading is offered by Justice Stephen Breyer's concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Breyer's concurrence would limit First Amendment protection only to instances in which the stolen information involved threats of physical harm. [5] Others contend the opinion endorses an ad hoc balancing test, requiring courts to engage in a freeform, case-by-case analysis of the relative weight of various interests surrounding disclosure. [6]

The behavior of the lower courts after Bartnicki indicates that in practice, the opinion is being construed narrowly. According to one commentator, writing ten years after Bartnicki was decided, "in no case reported to date has the holding in Bartnicki been applied to reach a similar conclusion in an analogous case." [5] It thus appears that Justice Breyer's narrow construction of the holding, which sought to limit the case to its unique facts, has effectively carried the day.

See also

Related Research Articles

Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Breyer</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1994 to 2022

Stephen Gerald Breyer is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and replaced retiring justice Harry Blackmun. Breyer was generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court. He is now the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at Harvard Law School.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" or limit their transmission to the hours of 10 pm to 6 am.

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)</span> Part of Terrorist Surveillance Program

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — was the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, phone calls, Internet activities, text messages and other forms of communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), was a landmark case about separation of powers in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress may not retroactively require federal courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia asserted that such action amounted to an unauthorized encroachment by Congress upon the powers of the judiciary and therefore violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.

Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), was a case brought before the US Supreme Court in November 1988. The case was to test the legality of a Texas statute that exempted religious publications from paying state sales tax.

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of a state statute requiring drug tests of all candidates for certain state offices. The case is notable as being the only one in recent years where the Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to a ballot access restriction from members of a third party, in this case the Libertarian Party of Georgia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2000 term, which began October 2, 2000 and concluded September 30, 2001.

<i>Jean v. Massachusetts State Police</i>

Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 is a case concerning the legality of posting a video on the internet obtained by another source through illegal means, which in this case involve use of a nanny cam to record others. The plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction against the defendants, who issued a cease-and-desist order regarding a video posted on the plaintiff's website. The defendants claimed the video was in violation of Massachusetts law M.G.L c 272 § 99, which defines the secret recording of audio without the consent of the persons recorded as interception, and subject to prosecution as a felony due to the presence of audio in the videorecording. The court's decision drew heavily off of previous court case Bartnicki v. Vopper. The court's decision held that it was legal to post such a video which was lawfully obtained from another, especially regarding a matter of public concern.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

<i>Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.</i>

Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (2002) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and overturned in part the ruling of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. An original, unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals was filed on January 8, 2001, which overturned the District Court opinion in its entirety. The Department of Justice then sought to intervene in the case at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA).

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
  2. ↑ Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 518-19.
  3. ↑ Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 542 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting)
  4. ↑ Richard Shoop, Bartnicki v. Vopper , 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 449, 452(2002).
  5. 1 2 Eric Easton, Ten Years After: Bartnicki v. Vopper as a Laboratory for First Amendment Advocacy and Analysis , 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 287(2011).
  6. ↑ James Hilmert, The Supreme Court Takes on the First Amendment Privacy Conflict and Stumbles: Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Wiretapping Act, and the Notion of Unlawfully Obtained Information , 77 Law & Other Pol'y Issues 639, 659(2002).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.