James O'Keefe, founder Project Veritas, at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on Oct. 12, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Posted on 07/05/2023 10:18:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An Oregon law that forbids recording in public without consent runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, a U.S. court has ruled.
James O'Keefe, founder Project Veritas, at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on Oct. 12, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Oregon law 165.540, first enacted in 1955 and subsequently broadened to bar secret recording of conversations, is unconstitutional, Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority in the 2–1 ruling, said.
Exceptions to the prohibition include recording at public meetings, such as city council hearings; while a felony that endangers human life is being committed; and by law enforcement officers while performing their jobs.
The law is content-based because certain groups, such as the law enforcement officers, are treated different than others, Ms. Ikuta said. That means it has to be narrowly tailored for a compelling governmental interest, or survive a test known as strict scrutiny.
Oregon does not have a compelling interest in protecting people’s privacy in public places, the majority ruled. Even if it did, the law is not tailored enough because Oregon has other laws that cover privacy concerns, such as a law allowing tort lawsuits by people who are recorded without consent.
The law “burdens more protected speech than is necessary to achieve its stated interest,” the judge wrote.
The judge also said that the law regulates speech to protect people’s privacy but that many people in public places don’t seek privacy. Instead of acknowledging that point, the law treats all speech in public the same.
When people talk in public places, the privacy of other individuals is only implicated if the speech is unwanted but the law does not incorporate that point, the majority said. They used the example of protesters who may want their conversations recorded in the hopes it will lead to publicity for their cause.
Ms. Ikuta was joined by Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, another George W. Bush appointee.
Judge Morgan Christen, an Obama appointee, wrote in a dissent that the law should be upheld because Oregon “has a significant interest in preventing the secret recording of private conversations even when those conversations occur in public or semi-public locations.”
Ms. Christen also said the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Oregon is one of only five states that have laws in places banning recording in public places without consent. The others are Alaska, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Montana.
Many other states explicitly allow recording in public without consent while five states have no laws in place regarding the matter.
The new ruling overturns a previous decision by a lower court.
The journalism group Project Veritas challenged the law in 2020, arguing it could result in undercover reporters being criminally charged. People have refused to talk in the past when being told they were being recorded, the group said, meaning the law prevented reporters from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Read more here...
Anyone see this affecting recording laws in other states yet?
Leave it to an ObamaStooge to dissent.
Since it is a district court ruling, it is only binding in courts in that district. It would take either other district courts to rule that way or a SCOTUS ruling for it to be binding in other districts
Wait till the schoolkids learn about this.
This is 9th circuit so should void similar laws in Hawaii, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Quam, and Northern Mariana Islands. I just haven’t seen any discussion on this yet.
Isn’t it strange how liberals feel you have no right to privacy when it concerns government intrusion, yet a total right to privacy when it comes to others filming you in public?
I believe that the ObamaStooge could contort himself into the opposite position if a political ally was making a public recording that would damage a Republican or a conservative.
Don’t you mean Sotoreo? The pole smokah?
Yes, Bathhouse Barry Soetoro.
The government records everything without my consent so why can’t I?
The irs sends me a tax bill if I make a mistake and owe them, but they never catch it if they owe me...
And how long were these laws on the books and how many people had their lives ruined because of these laws?
We have criminal government, folks.
Bfl
The recorded utterances (e.g.: "I'd like a ham-and-cheese sandwich, please," "My, you look pretty!", or "I'm going to beat your ass!") might be IDENTICAL.
Rather, it's the context that counts.
Regards,
Virginia has a “one-side” consent law that works well. Recording conversations is legal if at least one person in the conversation knows it’s being recorded. That keeps people from bugging phones or houses without letting someone else know.
Unless you’re a cop with a warrant.
That’s Texas law, as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.