''What the law says is you cannot intercept any oral communication where an individual has an expectation of privacy,'' she said. Advisers to The civil liberties group felt that expectation did not exist because the meeting had been advertised.

''While the attorneys felt very strongly for First Amendment freedom of the press arguments, they felt equally strongly that what the reporter did was unethical,'' she said.

David Garling, a spokesman for the homosexual group, said participants expected privacy despite the advertisement because the moderator read a long oath of confidentiality at the start of the meeting.

''The meetings are open, but the information is not public,'' Mr. Garling said. ''A good parallel would be an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.'' Dispute Over Confidentiality

Miss Polenz, of Katonah, N.Y., was present when the request for confidentiality was made and did not identify herself as a reporter, he said. She has said only that she did not take an oath of confidentiality.

Laura Ingraham, editor of The Dartmouth Review, has said the claim of confidentiality was out of place because the meeting had been advertised.

Miss Ingraham said The Review taped the meeting secretly because the association twice refused to tell the paper how it spent money it received from the college, $475 this year and $350 last year.