This analysis would seem to disagree with you. According to the Ninth Circuit, only people have privacy rights, not corporations.
There's a huge difference between a third-party (who wasn't part of a conversation/event) recording something, and a visible participant/witness recording something, even if the recording is secret. If the reporter bugs your room, yes, a privacy violation. Prosecute. If you let the reporter in the room with you, talk to him about it, and still do it in front of him anyway, it's news, even if you don't know he's a reporter.
You asserted NYT would be equally liable if they did the same thing. Can you cite me any cases where that's happened? What about all the Dateline, 20/20, 60 minutes, or other local news undercover investigations? Those were all without permission. It seems standard operating procedure for lots of news outlets, so where are the hundreds of jailed/prosecuted reporters?
Yes, there are. These were undercover videos by journalists. First amendment issues at risk here include:
- Does the government get to pick and choose who is a bona fide journalist, and thus allowing the government to choose who gets first amendment protection for the press?
- Does the freedom of the press include the right to conduct undercover investigations, which involve NOT getting the consent of those being investigated?
For #1, if you want to argue that they're not journalists, I hope you can see the dangers of letting the government decide who is and isn't a journalist. In effect, it's the same as letting the government decide who gets first amendment protection and who doesn't. I don't think that will work out so well. Do you want a jury to decide at their criminal trial? While that is a tiny bit better, it's not much of a right if a jury can vote it away, especially if your investigation is controversial and the jurors happen to not like what you found.
To get to #2, you have to concede that they're journalists who are covered by the free press. (See #1.) Undercover investigations are older than the first amendment, and if you're going to suddenly say the press can't conduct them, you're going to upset Dateline, 20/20, and A LOT of mainstream media. In effect, it would give the government a monopoly on undercover investigations, and I don't think that will work out so well either.
Clearly, two consent laws are unconstitutional as applied to press, if not everyone.
I'm old enough to remember when you couldn't get money from any other bank; you had to go to YOUR OWN BANK to get money.
Now you kids are complaining that a bank charges a $2 fee to cover the cost of you withdrawing from a RIVAL bank. Get off my lawn!
When ReactOS (or equivalent) can do most anything Windows can do.
People & businesses want a drop-in replacement for Windows, and all their software that runs on it. Rewriting (or buying) software for another OS just isn't going to happen. And WINE isn't up to the challenge for graphic intensive games or device drivers.
I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest