Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it backfires? Etc.

Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified?

What's the difference?

Two exceptions:

> The law provides two exceptions relevant to this appeal: (1) section 165.540(1)(c) does not apply to a person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life, Or. Rev. Stat § 165.540(5)(a); and (2) section 165.540(1)(c) allows a person to record a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant if the recording is made while the officer is performing official duties and meets other criteria.

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state.

The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view:

> Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are being recorded, the court’s analysis should be straightforward. First, principles of federalism require that the panel begin from a premise of reluctance to strike down a state statute. Next, following Supreme Court precedent, the panel should sever the two statutory exceptions [ed: felony endangering human lives, activities of police officers] that Project Veritas challenges, apply intermediate scrutiny to the content-neutral remainder, recognize that the statute is well- tailored to meet Oregon’s significant interest, and uphold section 165.540(1)(c) as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. Judge Christen stated that the purpose Oregon advances is its significant interest in protecting participants from having their oral conversations recorded without their knowledge. The majority recasts the State’s interest as one in “protecting people’s conversational privacy from the speech of other individuals.” That reframing of the legislature’s purpose serves as the springboard for the majority’s reliance on an inapplicable line of Supreme Court authority that pertains to state action aimed at protecting people from unwanted commercial or political speech, not protection from speech-gathering activities like Project Veritas’s, which are qualitatively different because they appropriate the speech of others.

I wonder to what extent repeal might happen. Do the judges who struck this down intend to, in the absence of law, now allow 0 party consent recording? Can I just go around planting bugs around the city & start recording as many people as I can, unbeknownst to them?

The point is that of course it has a chilling effect. It's not useful as a standalone principle...