Appeals Court Removes Ban on Hidden Camera : Courts: ‘Inside Edition’ attorneys hail decision as a victory for TV journalists’ First Amendment rights. Disputed footage will be aired Thursday.

In a case that has ramifications for TV news-gathering techniques, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has removed a temporary restraining order preventing the broadcast of a hidden-camera interview on the syndicated magazine show “Inside Edition.”

But the decision, while prohibiting the blocking of the disputed footage, did not address other issues about hidden-camera interviews in TV news. Those issues are likely to be pursued in other legal action.

“Inside Edition” had been blocked from airing a hidden-camera interview with a New York physician that was obtained by a producer posing as a patient. The hidden-camera interview was part of an investigation of Dr. Stuart Berger, a best-selling diet-book author whose nutrition therapies have been controversial.

“Inside Edition” plans to air the disputed footage in a follow-up story Thursday.

Berger has filed suit against King World, the producer of “Inside Edition,” and plans to pursue his case on the grounds that “Inside Edition” violated federal wiretapping laws and trespassed on his private property.

Attorneys for King World hailed the appeals court’s decision Monday as a victory for the First Amendment rights of TV journalists.

“The appeals court has said that Dr. Berger does not have the right to stop the show,” Martin Garbus, an attorney representing King World, said in an interview. “Prior restraint of publication is not permitted under the Constitution except on grounds of national security.”

“Reporters have always gone into places undercover in pursuit of the truth,” said Av Westin, senior vice president for King World and executive producer of “Inside Edition.” “The appeals court decision simply upholds a long-established protection for journalists in legitimate pursuits that the public can benefit from.”

“Inside Edition” last week was prevented from airing its hidden-camera interview by U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Hackett in Detroit. Hackett ruled that “Inside Edition” had violated the federal wiretapping law by obtaining the sequence with Berger without his consent or knowledge.

The case was said to be the first time that a judge had successfully imposed prior restraint on a nationally televised series. The report about Berger that “Inside Edition” aired last week did not include the hidden-camera segment, in which producer Amy Wasserstrom visited the doctor’s office, posing as a patient seeking his medical advice. Berger is currently under investigation by the New York State Health Department Office of Professional Medical Conduct.

The appeals court in Cincinnati held that the Detroit court “clearly erred in its interpretation of First Amendment law.” But it noted that the decision was “not intended to constitute an approval of the surreptitious means used to gather this information about Berger.”

“All they’ve said is that we can’t stop them (King World) from airing the show,” Russell Ethridge, an attorney for Berger, said in an interview. “But that doesn’t affect the validity of our other claims.”

According to Ethridge, Berger’s attorneys were considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to continue the restraining order, although it did not seem likely that any such action could be taken before the scheduled broadcast on Thursday.

Attorneys for King World contend that what they did was not illegal under New York state law, which allows such taping if one party consents to the act.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday to determine whether the case will be moved from Detroit to New York. Although he practices medicine in New York, Berger had sought the injunction in Detroit, his attorneys said, because he has business dealings there. King World has wanted the case moved to New York, where “Inside Edition” is produced and where First Amendment cases regularly are tried.