|
|
|
|
|
|
by foxyv
2918 days ago
|
|
|
I would think since the Principal is a government official and the recording took place in a government owned building that the 13-year old in question would be covered under the first amendment concerning freedom of the press. Why does it matter whether the conversation was taken note of in a journal or a tape recorder? The kid wasn't eavesdropping, he was part of the conversation. I would really like to see the supreme court rule on a case like this. |
|
|
If the kid had started off the conversation by saying "I'm going to record this", then he would have been fine (legally speaking; the principle probably wouldn't be happy and likely wouldn't agree to it). Being informed that a conversation is going to be recorded and then proceeding with that conversation is granting implicit consent to the recording. The problem is he recorded it in secret, which means there was no consent.
In the case of journalists, when a journalist thrusts a tape recorder in your face and asks you something, it's pretty obvious it's being recorded, so answering the question is giving consent to the recording.