Last month Paul Pechonis of Northboro supplied Ms. Jean with a video which shows a contingent of State Troopers (mostly plain clothed) placing him under arrest inside his house. He was charged with one count of threatening to commit a crime because a posting to one of his Web sites was construed as threatening a police officer and a judge. He denies the charge.
That will be a matter for the courts to decide.
Bloggers must now ask themselves two questions: 1)Was Mr. Pechonis within his rights to video tape his own arrest INSIDE HIS HOME? 2)Did Ms. Jean do anything wrong by posting that video to her Web site?
Go to her site (www.conte2006.com) to see the video and to read the cease and desist letter. There is also more information about the case.
It looks like the long arm of the law is reaching into the blogosphere. Anyone who values the First Amendment should be very concerned.
MGL 272 99
<
p>
IANAL, but I read it to suggest that any (audio?!) recording which is secret and not authorized by a judge is illegal. But, that seems like a bit of a stretch.
<
p>
Some questions are: * What if it is known to one party but not the other? * What if the camera is on your own property? * What if the entire scope of what is recorded occurs on your own property?
<
p>
There’s this problem where law enforcement doesn’t want their undercover agents filmed/photographed/recorded while doing their job. The flip side is that it would seem that every person would be entitled to filming themselves, secretly or not.
<
p>
Interesting case, but it really has little to do with blogging. If the film were being sold as a DVD or given away as a DVD, it’d be the same issue.
You are right about the interesting implications of this case. But I disagree with your conclusion. When a Web site operator who is criticizing a public official (in this case the district attorney) gets a highly threatening cease and desist letter because of her content, that has everything to do with blogging.
Are pretty clearly forbidden by the law. Looks like the video should come down, and the matter decided in court — in particular the issue of whether the home search was legal. Sending 12 police cars to make this arrest does seem excessive, if that happened, but the police in the video appeared to be professional, and if the chap who got arrested really did suggest a judge should be “executed,” as the blog says, then it is not too surprising that there was a strong reaction. My question is why the police should be so concerned about having this video online — that’s the interesting angle, I think.
The SJC opinion holding that that the law against recording private conversations without the consent of all parties extends to interactions with public officials acting in the course of their public duties was a great mistake. Other states with similar statutes have not interpreted them in that fashion, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in her dissent. Nonetheless, it is the law.
<
p>
That said, there is at least some reason to think that a third party’s publication of that recording ought to be protected by the First Amendment and the Massachusetts Constitution, even if the recording is not permitted in the first instance.
Another way to frame the question is: Are Web site bloggers entitled to the same First Amendment protection guaranteeing freedom of the press, as so-called “real” news outlets are?
The law applies to intercepted oral communications. The video would be fine (albeit not very interesting) if it had no sound.