On the one hand it seems reasonable that people have a right not to have their private conversations recorded. On the other hand if it uncovers illegality or serious hypocrisy that others should know about is there a justification for it?
You seem to understand the question quite well 👍 WT say that he was not a “party” to the meeting as he was not invited, they didn’t know he was there etc and therefore did not waive legal privilege (the meeting was with two attorneys and elders from each of the 11 congregations) and did not consent to him recording. They claim that both parties had to consent to recording as required by the relevant USA law. They claim that he shared information on a YouTube video that could only have been learnt from that meeting.
Mark contends that he was invited therefore hasn’t done anything wrong. He contends that he isn’t subject to the two party consent law they referenced. He also contends that most of the information that he shared was learnt prior to the meeting. Some of this section is redacted so it’s hard to understand what was known and what wasn’t.
My personal opinion: if someone recorded the meeting and gave it to him as a journalist and he reported on it, this claim would have been complete bs.
If a person breaks the law to obtain information that is reported publicly, I think it’s wrong as it gives scumbags like WT the ability to “sing from the rooftops” if they win.
I will be interested to see what the court determines. I hope the court rules against WT, but we shall have to wait and see.