Bartnicki v. Vopper
| Bartnicki v. Vopper | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued December 5, 2000 Decided May 21, 2001 |
||||||
| Full case name | Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al. | |||||
| Citations | 532 U.S. 514 (more) | |||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | |||||
| Subsequent history | 200 F. 3d 109, affirmed. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A broadcaster cannot be held civilly liable for publishing documents or tapes illegally procured by a third-party. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by O'Connor | |||||
| Dissent | Rehnquist, 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 people about a teachers' strike. The parties stipulated that the taped conversation had been illegally obtained by an intercept in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Court held the radio station not liable because the radio station itself did nothing illegal to obtain the tape. The case stands for the rule that media defendants are not liable even if a third party violated the law.
Contents |
[edit] Dissent
Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, was concerned with the effect that this decision would have on speech. He noted that 40 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have made knowing disclosure (publishing) of illegally intercepted electronic communication itself an illegal act. 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."
[edit]
On April 20, 2010 the Supreme Court held in United States v. Stevens (the so-called animal torture video case) that the government cannot hold criminally liable someone who distributes a tape of an illegal act that he/she was not complicit in committing, with exceptions.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
