I don’t care to play games with you. You said a meeting, which I took to be a public meeting of some sort. I am talking about a private more intimate conversation between a couple. I think you have stepped into a pile of something here and know it and don’t want to admit you erred. So, I’m done debating with you. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the first amendment. If you don’t get it, I’m sorry. For you. Now, go outside and play. It’s a lovely 3 day weekend.
I stepped in nothing—you have gotten to the point where you seriously believe that one is not entitled to record one’s own conversations. Your limited view of the word “meeting” is your own error. FreeDictionary gives the first definition for “meeting” as:
1. The act or process or an instance of coming together; an encounter.
Somehow, that just doesn’t preclude an intimate setting.
I find the act of recording and publicizing intimate, romantic moments to be morally reprehensible—but we do not outlaw everything that is immoral (or else the whole of the populace would be in jail). Attempting to clamp down on this particular issue would, I think, have chilling ramifications much broader than you are thinking of.
Incidentally, this seems to be quite a bur under your saddle. Did someone pull a stunt like this on you?
The distribution of legally obtained material is protected by the first amendment. Do you or do you not agree with that statement?
A person should be allowed to record their own conversations. Do you or do you not agree with that statement?