Replies

" No. He seems to be making an argument James is "Party 1" and Hannah is "Party 2". That's not going to fly. In this instance, Hannah and James are of the same party, making it impossible for them to give the legally required two-party consent. "

What I was trying to say is, just like in the Linda Trippe case, Linda was one party, and Monica was the 2nd party, how could Linda Trippe be charge with the wiretapping law of a communications intercept of her own conversation without he knowing ? ..... Linda know who she was talking to, and Monica know who she was talking to.
This law pertains to someone getting a court order to cut into someone's phone line without their knowing of it.
In James and Hannah's case, it was Jame's and Hannah's own video cam, and Jame and Hannah was the 1st party , and the ACORN workers were the 2nd party, how can there have been a 3rd party in on the conversation ???
How can James and Hannah intercept their own conversation without their knowing ? ...... it's absurd.
Even if ACORN's lawyers go with their arguments, they are going to be hard pressed to prove how the conversation was intercepted without James and Hannah's knowing.

"How can James and Hannah intercept their own conversation without their knowing ? ...... it's absurd."

Because the conversation wasn't between Hannah and James. It was between Hannah, James and the ACORN employees - hence the problem with all party consent.

"This law pertains to someone getting a court order to cut into someone's phone line without their knowing of it."

The statute certainly covers that, but it's not limited to just that. Again, this is why the include the relevant term "oral communication" and it's definition in the statute. Oral is explicitly NOT an electronic communication.

You may read the statute, in its entirety here.

Look, there have been several Journalism PACs that have objected to the Maryland statute for just this reason - it criminalizes what would otherwise be sound and well-intentioned investigative journalism. But, the statute is what it is.

In this particular case, the jury in the civil case is going to have to make a determination as to the ACORN employees' "reasonable expectation of privacy". Did these specific circumstance allow these employees to enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I happen to think it they did not, but anything can happen when you take a case to the box.

However, what's more important in this particular case with respect to this particular statute is the journalist's cognizance (or lack thereof) of the alleged illegality of their actions. The statute demands that in order to prevail in a civil claim, the plaintiff must prove that Hannah and James were aware of MD relevant wiretapping statute. It's an impossible challenge for the plaintiff's to meet, in my estimation.