“The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious. Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State’s Attorney relies on the government’s interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events. Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content-neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free-speech and free-press guarantees.”

Judge Sykes is likely correct. It just hasn't been adequately tested in court - therefore the 'likely'.

In an attempt to protect the god/state, the draconian statutes clearly violate the individual sovereign(s) and his rights. anonymous' assessment of the occupying statitist theocracy infesting this land's jurisprudence perspective is how it is reported.

The rats and roaches always run for darkness, when the light is turned on. Transparency is the buzz word thrown around concerning public office. Every one has bones in the closet, if it is not cleaned out before hand, don't take the job ! Low things in high places. Likely my batunkus,

You have to give the ACLU thanks for keeping the pressure on regarding this issue. @anonymous, I believe that the Illinois eavesdropping statute was declared unconstitutional, and the US Supreme Court would not hear the appeal thus letting the ruling stand. The primary argument the state made was that the right to privacy of the citizen speaking with a law enforcement officer would be violated if the eavesdropping statute was repealed (like that was a real concern). So what did the Illinois legislature then do? They passed a law that allows cops to record conversations with citizens without a warrant or consent. Anything you say can and will be used against you -- even if you are not under arrest! ;-) Five stars for the ruling.