A U.S. Appeals Court ruled on May 1 that a congressman who shared an illegally taped call with a reporter was not protected for this action by the free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The recorded phone call in question was an intercepted cell phone conversation taken in 1996 of then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, as he spoke with fellow legislators while driving on the freeway. Political activists opposed to Gingrich intercepted the call, and transferred it to Congressman Jim McDermott (also a political opponent of Gingrich). McDermott then provided the recording to the press, and it is this act that resulted in criminal charges against him, charges which the appeals court refused to overturn. McDermott now has a window of several weeks to decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Analysis: Positive development for men. We have written about this case before, on October 31, 2006. The reason why this case is important is that it presents an opportunity for falsely accused men to capture proof of their innocence electronically, and without fear of legal consequences. The reason why this is a positive development for men is that the court ruled that only McDermott is at fault -- and only because he was a sitting member of the House Ethics Committee. The ruling against McDermott, therefore, SETS NO PRECEDENT that would constrain falsely accused men from providing evidence of their innocence to reporters (for example, if elements of the judicial system tried to suppress, penalize, or otherwise block such evidence from exonerating the accused). If McDermott plans to appeal the ruling, we will continue to monitor this case until the final outcome is determined.