Bartnicki v. Vopper Introdcution in Bartnicki v.

BARTNICKI v. VOPPER INTRODCUTION In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the news media even when they broadcast private cellular-phone conversations that were illegally intercepted by someone else. Ruling in its first major press-freedom case in a decade, the high court said the federal law making it a crime to intercept and disseminate phone conversations cannot be used against the news media when they report on matters of public concern. This decision is of great legal significance due to its political and practical effects.

This paper analyzes and examines the United States Supreme Court case of Bartnicki v. Vopper. In Part II, the facts of the case are discussed. Part III outlines the Court's ruling, including the dissenting justices' position. In Part IV, the legal basis for the ruling and the political and practical effects of the Court's ruling are reviewed.

FACTS In May 1993, Gloria Bartnicki, chief negotiator for the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union, had a cellular phone conversation with Anthony Kane, a teacher at Wyoming Valley West High School about the contentious negotiations over the teachers' new contract. An unknown person intercepted the contents of the cellular phone conversation and gave them to defendant Jack Yocum, president of the Wyoming Valley West Taxpayers' Association -- an organization formed for the sole purpose of opposing the teachers' new contract.

Yocum then gave the tape to a Fred Williams, a local radio show host, who goes by the name of Frederick Vopper. Vopper played portions of the cell phone conversation over the air. Bartnicki and Kane sued Vopper, two radio stations and Yocum in federal district court in 1994 under the Federal Wiretapping Act and a similar state law. In 1995, the federal district court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, finding there were genuine issues of material fact.

The district then later certified two questions of law to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The certified questions asked whether imposing liability on the defendants, none of whom illegally intercepted the contents of the phone call, violates the First Amendment. In 1999, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal law imposing liability on individuals who merely disclose or use material that was illegally intercepted violates the First Amendment.

The plaintiffs and the United States, which had intervened to defend the constitutionality of its law, appealed to the United States Supreme Court. III. COURT'S RULING AND DISSENTING OPINION The issue in this case was whether a federal law (the Federal Wiretapping Act) that imposes civil liability on individuals for using or disclosing the contents of illegally intercepted communications that they did not illegally obtain, but that they knew or had reason to know were obtained illegally, violates the defendants' First Amendment rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the law as applied to the defendants in this particular case violated the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that the defendants published truthful information about a matter of public importance. Justice Stevens authored the main opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter. Justice Breyer authored a concurring opinion and was joined by Justice O'Connor.

In finding that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated, Justice Stevens and the other members of the majority noted "it seems to us that there are important interests to be considered on both sides of the constitutional calculus." These interests include the right to privacy as well as the right to publication of truthful information of public concern. Likewise, Justice Stevens and the other members of the majority emphasized the fact that the defendants broadcast truthful information of public concern.

As Justice Stevens and the other members of the majority noted, "the enforcement of that provision in this case however, implicates the core provision of the First Amendment because it imposes sanctions on the publication of truthful information of public concern." Justice Rehnquist authored the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. In his dissent, Justice Rehnquist emphasized the fact that Bartnicki did not consent to the broadcasting of the conversation.

According to Justice Rehnquist and the other dissenters, "the Constitution should not protect the involuntary broadcast of conversation." The protection of individual privacy was another point focused on in the dissenting opinion. As Justice Rehnquist and the other dissenters noted, "only by striking at all aspects of the problem can privacy be adequately protected." IV. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RULING; POLITICAL AND PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE COURT'S RULING There are several legal reasons for the Court's ruling.

First, "State action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional concerns." Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979). Privacy of communication is an important interest. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). Next, the right of privacy does not generally prohibit the publication of truthful information of material that is of public interest. Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193, (1890).

Third, the statute as a whole does not discriminate against speech because it singles out communications based on their source rather than the subject matter of the intercepted communications. However, the specific provision at issue directly regulates pure speech because it punishes disclosure. The government must show a compelling interest to punish truthful information about matters of public concern. The normal method of deterring illegal conduct is to punish the person who engages in the illegal conduct (the illegal interceptor).

Here, the government failed to present sufficient evidence to show that punishing the discloser will dry up the market for the illegal interceptors of private communications. In balancing the competing constitutional concerns, the right of privacy should not trump the publication of truthful information about matters of public concern. The ruling in Bartnicki v. Vopper has several political and practical effects. First, this ruling frees journalists from having to trace the legal pedigree of information given to them to see if it was legally obtained by their.