A federal appeals court has upheld Oregon’s longstanding ban on most secret recordings, dealing a significant blow to Project Veritas, the controversial activist group renowned for its undercover tactics.
In a decisive 9-2 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Oregon’s conversational privacy law does not infringe upon free speech rights. The law, crafted to protect residents from being secretly recorded, was deemed narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest in safeguarding personal privacy.
This ruling overturns a prior decision by a divided panel from the same court, which had briefly invalidated the law. Judges aligned with the majority cited the dangers of covert recordings being manipulated into audio “deepfakes” or circulated online to mislead the public.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Morgan Christen dismissed arguments that secret recordings were indispensable for journalism. She pointed to historical undercover investigations conducted without such tactics, referencing figures like Nellie Bly and Gloria Steinem, whose groundbreaking work relied on observation and firsthand reporting.
The dissenting judges, however, criticized the law as overly broad, cautioning that it could stifle journalists from documenting public conversations or exposing abuses of power.
Project Veritas, which frequently publishes edited recordings targeting liberal organizations and individuals, vowed to escalate the battle to the U.S. Supreme Court. The group argues that the First Amendment should robustly protect secret recordings, equating them to traditional tools of journalism.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield hailed the decision as a victory for privacy rights, emphasizing that the law includes exceptions for certain high-stakes scenarios, such as life-threatening felonies or recordings of law enforcement actions.
Project Veritas initially filed the lawsuit in 2020, claiming the law hindered their ability to document protests in Portland following the death of George Floyd. Critics, however, have long condemned the group’s methods as deceptive, noting that their selectively edited recordings often paint misleading narratives.
The case, which now moves closer to a potential Supreme Court showdown, highlights the ongoing tension between privacy protections and the evolving tactics of modern journalism.
