3 ms·
"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either deci
by billswift 16y ago
"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either decide that people are free to secretly record any conversation they’re privy to, or have to draw lines between some conversations and other conversations that are hard to justify as a First Amendment matter."
Since anyone can report on anything that is said to them, with "expectation of privacy" or not, all requiring permission to record from the other person a conversation you are party to is to make it easy for liars. If A says B said X, and B says he didn't, then all a recording could do is determine who's lying. The existence of a recording doesn't constitute a betrayal, the reporting of private conversation does, whether or not there is a recording.
- ScottBurson 16y agoAgreed. While it's clear why it's illegal to record other people's conversations, I don't get why it has ever been illegal to secretly record a conversation in which one is a known participant. How is that "wiretapping"??? I think if I say something to you, you should be able to hold me accountable for it. I don't have a problem with that. Does anyone here understand why these laws prohibit recording of one's own conversations???