Bartnicki v. Vopper, Aka Williams

Summary

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of an illegally intercepted cellular conversation when the disclosers did not participate in the interception, obtained the information lawfully, knew or had reason to know of the unlawful interception, and the conversation concerned a matter of public concern. Although the wiretap statutes validly imposed liability under their text, applying them to these disclosures impermissibly burdened truthful speech because the privacy interests were outweighed by the public interest in publication. Justice Breyer, concurring, agreed only on the narrow circumstances presented, while Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting, would have upheld the statutes under intermediate scrutiny.