Bartnicki v. Vopper
Encyclopedia
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.
, 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:
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.
Legal liability
Legal liability is the legal bound obligation to pay debts.* In law a person is said to be legally liable when they are financially and legally responsible for something. Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law. See Strict liability. Under English law, with the passing of the Theft...
for broadcasting a taped conversation of a labor official talking to other union
Trade union
A trade union, trades union or labor union is an organization of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members and negotiates labour contracts with...
people about a teachers' strike. The parties stipulated
Stipulation
In the law of the United States, a stipulation is an agreement made between opposing parties prior to a pending hearing or trial. For example, both parties might stipulate to certain facts, and therefore not have to argue those facts in court. After the stipulation is entered into, it is...
that the taped conversation had been illegally obtained by an intercept in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a United States law.- Overview :The “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or...
. 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.
Dissent
Justice William RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
, in his dissent
Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment....
, 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."
Subsequent related decisions
ÊOn April 20, 2010 the Supreme Court held in United States v. Stevens
United States v. Stevens
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577 was an April 20, 2010 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the version of 18 U.S.C...
(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.