1

Activist and YouTuber Avi Yemeni recorded the conversation he had with "comedian" and show host Geoff Nugent A.K.A "Jim Jefferies". The conversation seemed to have taken place on a professional broadcasting set. Jefferies' show recorded the conversation as well, with production cameras.

The reason Yemeni recorded the conversation was in anticipation for how he believed Jefferies or his production company was going to twist his words and make him look like something that he is not. His intuition was proven correct.

Yemeni has now filed a lawsuit against the production company and Jefferies for defamation. I read one comment that suggested that Yemeni illegally recorded the conversation by using a hidden camera and did not receive consent to do so. My question is, under New York state law (which is where the lawsuit was filed), is it illegal to record the conversation in question the way it was done in this specific case? I did read that NY state is a one-party consent state when it comes to recording. I'm looking for clarification.

This shows the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q

| improve this question | | | | |
2

Did Avi Yemini illegally record “Jim Jefferies” by using a hidden mobile phone?

No. One- and two-party consent rules are about confidentiality of a conversation rather than an issue of whether either party gets to monopolize the recording(s) of their conversation.

In this case, the conversation took place with both parties' awareness that the conversation was being recorded for its subsequent broadcast[ing] or transmission to the public. At that point it is irrelevant whether there were additional devices recording the same conversation.

The parties' aforementioned awareness is tantamount to mutual consent, and thus it precludes either party from alleging a violation of the confidentiality that the two-party consent rule seeks to protect.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Would you have a link to a law or statute that backs this up? – Rstew Feb 19 at 22:51
  • 1
    @Rstew "Would you have a link to a law or statute that backs this up?" Yes. See, for instance, the authority(-ies) cited in People v. Diaz, 149 A.D.3d 974, 975 (2017) ("A party's consent to the taping of his [or her] telephone calls can be inferred from his [or her] knowledge that such conversations would be monitored"). The distinction of interview as opposed to telephone call is immaterial. The dispositive element is the party's knowledge or the awareness I mention in the answer. – Iñaki Viggers Feb 19 at 23:39
  • 1
    Thank you for providing that. I feel that this is sufficient to be the accepted answer. – Rstew Feb 20 at 19:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.