WASHINGTON (AP) -- A radio host cannot be sued for airing a phone conversation taped illegally by a third party, the Supreme Court said Monday in a decision that supported media rights over privacy law.
The 6-3 ruling on First Amendment protections was both novel and narrow.
It was the first time the court considered the protection accorded published or broadcast speech that disclosed illegally obtained, wiretapped conversations.
The court majority, however, cautioned the ruling was tailored to circumstances of the case -- involving a private conversation between union officials during newsworthy bargaining talks.
The decision upheld a lower court ruling in favor of a Pennsylvania radio host and others who aired a tape of an intercepted cellular phone call.
"In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing the dissent, concluded the majority "diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment: chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day."
Joined by justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Rehnquist said the court should respect the United States, the District of Columbia and 40 states that enacted laws prohibiting the intentional interception and knowing disclosure of electronic communications.
First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams of New York, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of media organizations, said, "The conflict between First Amendment interests and privacy interests has rarely been as acute as in this opinion.
"Even though the decision was a narrow one legally, it was a significant one in permitting the press to report the news accurately to the public."
Abrams said the ruling would apply to newspapers as well as broadcast stations and the Internet.
The case grew out of a protracted labor dispute between the Wyoming Valley West High School in Wyoming, Pa., and its teachers' union, affiliated with the Pennsylvania State Education Association.
An unknown individual secretly recorded a 1993 cellular phone exchange between teachers' union negotiator Gloria Bartnicki and the union president, Anthony Kane Jr.
"If they're not going to move for 3 percent, we're gonna have to go to their homes ... to blow off their front porches," Kane said.
The tape was dropped in the mailbox of Jack Yocum, the head of a local taxpayers group that opposed the union's demands.
Bartnicki and Kane -- and the Justice Department in a separate filing -- sued, claiming radio host Frederick Vopper broke federal and state laws against wiretapping by broadcasting the conversation. The suit also named Yocum and Vopper's radio station.
Stevens made clear that the case hinged on three specific circumstances: the radio host and the station played no part in the illegal interception; Vopper obtained the information legally; and the subject matter was of public concern.
Stevens said the privacy protections of wiretap laws are designed to punish illegal conduct by those who illegally record conversations.
"But it would be quite remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party," Stevens said.
David Brown, senior vice president and general counsel of the Newspaper Association of America, said the industry group was pleased with the outcome but was concerned it didn't go far enough.
Since the opinion only dealt with media coverage of a high-profile issue, "There may be room left for prosecution" of news organizations that publish or broadcast truthful information on less-public matters, he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which entered the case on behalf of the broadcaster, welcomed the ruling. The organization said the best way to protect private communications is for the government to end restrictions on powerful encryption technology.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor filed a separate opinion agreeing with the majority outcome but underscoring that the decision should not be read as a blank check for the news media.
The Associated Press, along with several newspapers, broadcast networks and magazines, filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing in favor of the broadcast.
The cases are Bartnicki vs. Vopper, 99-1687, and U.S. vs. Vopper, 99-1728.
