JOURN 4000 1st Edition Lecture 27Outline of Last LectureI. Privacy lawsOutline of Current LectureI. Privacy lawsCurrent LectureNewt Gingrich phone convo:-Couple were fined $1,000 for intercepting convo, gave to McDermot-McDermot leaked to media knew tape was obtained illegally-Barnicki vs. Vopper did not apply Linda Tripp:-Recorded convos between Monica Lewinsky and herself-Not interception-Didn’t violate law because Maryland law is a two-party consent state, unless the recorder is notaware of that -Ignorance is a defenseRecording:-Most states allow you to record a convo -Feds, ok if you are a party in the convo-Depends based on the stateMO-one party law Recording-FCCThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-FCC used to require consent to air convos-Beep tone to let knkow recording is occurring-Record consent to be recorded-FCC is enforcing consent requirements Hidden cameras/mics-Does the person have a reasonable right to privacyDr. Plumber-Dietemann v. Time (71)-Life magazine reporters cooperating with LA district atorney -Transmiter in purse, other reporter in a car outside with a tape recorder-Brought privacy suit against Life magazine, won -1st Amendment cannot intrude into someone’s home/office-Not even if a person is accused of a crime-Mental distress caused by invasion of privacy-Illinois was the first state to make tape recording without consent illegal in ‘75Cop case:-Cop is a public official, public has the right to know what they’re doing Gerarldo Rivera-Secretely tape judge for segmentPsychic case-Under what circumstances does a person have a “reasonable expectation of
View Full Document