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?
Legally obtained material is subject to change, clearly, since the laws vary by state. So, you are speaking nonsense.
A person can certainly record themself. But, if there is another person involved, that is the sticking point. No, I have never been involved in something like this, but I am not so shallow that I cannot put myself into the place of another person.
You can go on and on all you like. This is not a first amendment issue. We seem to be going over and over the same point here. You are not going to say anything new, clearly, and so, I think we are done. Adios Senor.