When a recipe entails too many ingredients, it becomes more difficult to digest. Well, the same principle applies to legal cases involving too many important issues such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and information about public matters. Judges, attorneys, and the public get confused trying to make sense of a case that entails significant and numerous democratic rights. This article provides a brief information about the U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). Bartnicki involves the private interception of a cell phone conversation between two labor union participants, later made public by a local radio station. Was this a violation of federal and state wiretapping laws? Was there a violation of privacy also? And how freedom of speech interacts with matters of public concern?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. This is a legal concept easy to understand, but difficult to solve in court proceedings. Additionally, the right to privacy is protected by the United States Constitution and several federal statutes, depending on the particular issue at hand. For instance, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 100 Stat. 1848, protects the right to privacy on electronic communications. ECPA particularly prohibited the interception of oral, wire, and "electronic" communications. ECPA enlarged protection on private communications as previously regulated by title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (OCCSSA), 82 Stat. 211. OCCSSA was also amended in 1994 to include protection of cordless telephone communications, 108 Stat. 4279. OCCSSA, ECPA, and the 1994 amendment are codified in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et. seq.
A person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept an oral, wire, or electronic communication violates 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Also, a person who intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person, the content of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication commits a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c).
Bartnicki involves the unlawful and intentional interception of a cellular phone conversation between the chief negotiator of a labor union and a teacher, who was the president of the labor union. The teacher, referring to the Board''''''''s president inflexibility, proffered some statements such as "we''''''''re gonna have to go to their, their homes . . . [t]o blow off their front porches . . ." An unknown private party intercepted these conversations and offered them to the Board"s president and to the local media, including a radio station. A local radio station broadcasted the teacher''''''''s remarks. The teacher filed a lawsuit for damages alleging that the Board''''''''s president and the radio station violated 18 U.S.C. § 2510 by publishing the content of a communication that had been obtained illegally in violation federal wiretapping laws. The district court ruled for the plaintiff. It held that the Board''''''''s president violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) even if he did not directly intercept the conversation, and that imposing liability on the respondents did not violate the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. Respondent''''''''s appealed and the court of appeals reversed. It stated that the federal wiretapping statutes violated the First Amendment right and that the radio station was protected by the First Amendment because the content of the conversation in this particular case involved matters of public concern.
On Certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that "(1) the First Amendment protected the disclosure of the conversation''''''''s contents; and (2) the application of 2511(1)(c) and the Pennsylvania statute violated the First Amendment, because such application could not be justified by (a) a government interest in removing an incentive for parties to intercept private conversations, as there was no basis for assuming that imposing sanctions upon those who made the disclosure would deter the unidentified interceptor from continuing to engage in surreptitious interceptions, or (b) an interest in minimizing the harm to persons whose conversations have been illegally intercepted, as (i) the negotiations in question were a matter of public concern, and (ii) in the case at hand, privacy concerns gave way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance."
This Supreme Court holding states that it is applicable to the specific facts of this case. Yet, it is a matter of concern to know that private communications can be intercepted and published by local media when those communications involved matters of public concern. This means, the media''''''''s freedom of speech regarding public matters triumphs the individual''''''''s right to privacy. Well, maybe this decision is a truly democratic one, indeed.