Judge: Journalists can't record in secret
Secretly recording a person in the name of undercover journalism is not a constitutional right in Massachusetts, according to a federal judge who tossed a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group challenging the state’s wiretap statute.
Project Veritas, an organization that has made a name for itself by publishing hidden-camera footage, argued that the state’s wiretapping law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. U.S. District Court Judge Pati Saris, however, tossed the suit Thursday, finding that the statute appropriately restricts when and where a person can be recorded.
“Individuals have conversations they intend to be private, in public spaces, where they may be overheard, all the time — they meet at restaurants and coffee shops, talk with coworkers on the walk to lunch, gossip with friends on the subway, and talk too loudly at holiday parties or in restaurant booths,” Saris wrote. “These types of conversations are ones where one might expect to be overheard, but not recorded and broadcast.”
Project Veritas, which gained notoriety after releasing video footage of a Democratic activist boasting about how he helped derail a Donald Trump rally, vehemently argued that Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley shouldn’t have the power to bring charges against any of its reporters for secretly recording conversations.
“We’re pleased with the ruling, which is consistent with Massachusetts law, dating back decades,” Suffolk DA spokesman Jake Wark said.
An attorney for Project Veritas said the group’s legal team is mulling their options, and that they will likely appeal. They did, however, appreciate the fact that Saris ruled that the group had standing to bring the suit in the first place — a point of contention between Project Veritas attorneys and the state attorney general’s office.
“We’re obviously pretty disappointed. Here we’re going for a touchdown, and the judge only seemed to move the ball a few yards,” said Stephen Klein, an attorney for Project Veritas. “We do appreciate the judge recognizing our ability to come to court.”
In a related decision earlier this month, Saris ruled that a case concerning whether police can be privately recorded in their official capacity can move forward. The case was brought by the ACLU, who represent two civil rights activists.
“It is a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duty in public,” said Matt Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We’re not arguing that you have a right to record some officer in their home or when they are off-duty. We’re talking about when a police officer is acting as a police officer.”