Journalists and the law

[Nessie]

In practice, your proposal is exactly this.


Which journalists should be able to ignore, for the greater good, right?


Which journalists should be able to ignore, for the greater good, right?


Which journalists should be able to ignore, for the greater good, right?


And the courts? And the courts? And the courts? Really?

This entire thread is based on your contention that reporters should be exempted from judicial sanction, if they commit criminal acts for the greater good.

That is an over simplistic way of describing my position. I say there are times where I can see a greater good being achieved by the press breaking certain laws.

If you actually want journalists to be subjected to the same rule of law as everybody else, then apparently we agree, and this entire thread is irrelevant.

I can see times where the press should be given some leeway. The main area is over privacy as many of the activities that I want the press to deal with are activities that need secrecy, such as criminal enterprise and corruption.

Why? What makes journalists more special than other citizens? Why can't any citizen investigate and publish, and be exempt from legal sanction if they can show "due cause" for breaking the law?

For the same reason I would say citizens cannot pretend to be doctors and treat people, or pass themselves off as police to investigate crime.

I guess the bottom line is that you believe that "press regulations", "code of conduct", and "editorial" are a sufficient basis for establishing a special extra-legal class of citizens, that are exempt from the rule of law in ways that no other citizen--even actual agents of your government--enjoy.

Since the phone hacking scandal I agree with the present action (supported by the Lib Dems and Labour) to tighten up on press regulations and have them backed by law.

The police and government bodies have far more powers than the press to investigate others and exemptions in the law.

And, having reviewed your body of work on this forum, I have no reason at all to think anything will ever shake this belief.

If you can show me I am wrong, I will alter my belief. I did so with regards to guns.

So, suffice to say that I strongly disagree with your proposal. I think that journalists, like every citizen, have the right to investigate and publish information to the fullest extent permissible by law. I think that they should have remedy in court if they are prevented from exercising that right. I think the state and their victims should have remedy in court if a journalist breaks the law, and I think that journalists should not have the power to hide from the law behind their press pass. Finally, I think that if special investigators are needed, they should be sanctioned by the state, and subject to far greater admission and oversight controls than are currently in place for press entities.

I think your fetish for investigative reporters is perverse and harmful.

I do think that by being a journalist you do get certain powers others do not, but that is not as scary as you think. Most jobs give people powers not shared with the general population. Try turning up at a school and announcing you are there as a citizen to teach the children and see what happens.

I think investigative journalism is an important protection in our society and your desire to hamstring them is perverse and harmful.

 

[Nessie]

So should the media have obeyed the laws during apartheid?

Should the media obey the currently proposed secrecy bill in South Africa today?

"The dismantling of formal apartheid and the 1994 transition to democracy promised to remove government censorship and as
a result, South Africa's 1996 Constitution protects media freedom as an explicit element of the freedom of expression. South
Africa currently has a relatively free media with very few laws limiting the activities of journalists and publishers.

But there are a number of very significant limitations and threats to media freedom in South Africa. These threats include the
intimidation and vilification of journalists by politicians, the Secrecy Bill that in its' current form criminalizes journalists for being in possession of classified information, as well as the ANC's proposal to establish a Media Appeals tribunal (MAT) that would likely see a statuary body (that reports to Parliament) evaluating the quality of editorial content and imposing sanctions on journalists. The MAT could in effect become a form of post-publication censorship that could discourage critical and investigative journalism that uncovered information or promoted opinion that threatened the government of the day. The threat of a MAT could also have the effect of pre-publication self-censorship, where journalists and editors are discouraged from publishing material which could land them in trouble with the statutory body, regardless that the story may be in the legitimate public interest."

That is properly scary stuff and is exactly why the press needs to regulated with a light touch and allowed leeway when it is in the public's interest.

 

[GeeMack]

I do think that by being a journalist you do get certain powers others do not, [...]

Fortunately in the US that isn't true. It's also fortunate that it will never become true based on the subjective opinion of people who don't have the slightest understanding of how the law works in the US.

 

[Skwinty]

The media in South Africa are governed by a number of bodies.

These are self regulating bodies which apply to the media and not to private citizens, so IMO, it is not correct to equate a private citizen to a journalist.

If the state wishes to hide it's wrong doings from the public eye, then yes, the media can be excused for a reasonable number of transgressions of the law.

Now, I am not advocating that journalists should be immune to murder or other such serious criminal charges, but if they hack e-mails and the like to uncover criminal and fraudulent activities and then refuse to divulge their sources, IMO that is acceptable.

Thankfully the media in this country are by and large a courageous group of individuals who willfully put their lives in harms way in the pursuit of the truth.

 

[theprestige]

That is an over simplistic way of describing my position.

Fair enough. I'm looking for clarity, not oversimplification. Thanks for pointing out when I've gone too far.

I say there are times where I can see a greater good being achieved by the press breaking certain laws.

I agree. In fact, I'd say this not just about the press but about any citizen. I think where you and I disagree is on the question of whether the law should provide for special legal exemptions for "the press".

I can see times where the press should be given some leeway. The main area is over privacy as many of the activities that I want the press to deal with are activities that need secrecy, such as criminal enterprise and corruption.

Does your nation seriously lack a properly authorized and regulated agency that can conduct such investigations within the boundaries of the law?

For the same reason I would say citizens cannot pretend to be doctors and treat people, or pass themselves off as police to investigate crime.

Why can't they pass themselves off as citizens to investigate crime?

Doctors go through rigorous screening and training, and they must still operate within the law.

Police go through rigorous screening and training, and they must still operate within the law.

What you're proposing is a special class of citizens, lacking in the kind of screening and training imposed on doctors and police, but who should anyway be granted extralegal powers of special investigation, so that they can, by virtue of having a "code of concuct" and an "editorial [board]" go above and beyond what is the right of every citizen and the duty of every law enforcement agent.

Since the phone hacking scandal I agree with the present action (supported by the Lib Dems and Labour) to tighten up on press regulations and have them backed by law.

What does this mean, in the context of this thread? Are you advocating a crackdown on journalists who display a careless attitude about the law?

The police and government bodies have far more powers than the press to investigate others and exemptions in the law.

And far more regulation and oversight, as well.

And I think you'll find that what you are callling "exemptions in the law" are actually an extensive body of law in their own right, explicitly spelling out the legal limits imposed on government agents.

If you want journalists to operate within the same legal limits as the police, then you should spell out those legal limits, just like they are spelled out for the police. Better yet: make them police.

Even better: Since you already have police, let journalists be citizens who have made it their profession to investigate and report information, and let them be governed by the same laws that govern every other citizen.

If you can show me I am wrong, I will alter my belief. I did so with regards to guns.

Wrong about what? The value you place on journalism as a branch of government? Your elevation of journalists above the common citizenry? I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

I do think that by being a journalist you do get certain powers others do not, but that is not as scary as you think. Most jobs give people powers not shared with the general population. Try turning up at a school and announcing you are there as a citizen to teach the children and see what happens.

But that's not the scenario you're proposing.

What you're proposing is that a journalist should be able to go before a judge and asked to be excused for breaking the law, because they did it for a good reason, and because they're a journalist. You're proposing that any citizen, having the same good reason, should not receive the same treatment before the law if they are not a journalist.

I think that, if anything, it should be the other way around: Any leniency a journalist can elicit from the courts, any citizen in the same circumstance should also be able to elicit. Nothing about carrying a press pass should set one citizen apart from another, before the law.

I think investigative journalism is an important protection in our society and your desire to hamstring them is perverse and harmful.

Hamstring them how? By rejecting your proposal to make them magically above the law in a way not regulated (as are government agents), nor clearly defined?

Your figure of speech fails anyway. A journalist has to have hamstrings, before they can be cut. But journalists do not yet have the extralegal powers you're proposing. So far in history, they have had to get by with the same legal rights, privileges, and constraints as their fellow citizens. You can't have it both ways: Journalists can't be an important protection under their current restrictions, and simultaneously be crippled under their current restrictions.

Not only that but under the current restrictions, all citizens are equally empowered to investigate and report information. You don't have to rely on some special class of people to find the information and feed it to you: You can go out and get it yourself, on your own authority as a citizen.

 

[theprestige]

These are self regulating bodies which apply to the media and not to private citizens, so IMO, it is not correct to equate a private citizen to a journalist.

Interesting. Can you clarify something for me?

My profession is something other than journalism. Within my profession, I am governed by self-regulating bodies. The most notable such body is my employer, who grants me certain privileges and authorities not enjoyed by the vast majority of my fellow citizens. But I would say I am still equal to a private citizen, in the eyes of the law.

Is it different for journalists and their self-regulating bodies, in your country? Does being a journalist member of these bodies entitle one to a privileged position before the law, not enjoyed by other citizens?

 

[GeeMack]

Even better: Since you already have police, let journalists be citizens who have made it their profession to investigate and report information, and let them be governed by the same laws that govern every other citizen.

What a novel idea!

 

[Skwinty]

Does being a journalist member of these bodies entitle one to a privileged position before the law, not enjoyed by other citizens?

Firstly, it would be unusual for a normal citizen to be involved in investigative journalism.

Whistle blowing is of course another issue with it's own set of inherent problems, hence there are few whistle blowers.

When a private citizen stands before a judge he cannot, AFAIK, claim to be protected by freedom of the press privileges.

 

[Skwinty]

http://robertbrand.wordpress.com/20...tection-of-journalists’-confidential-sources/


"Recent events in South Africa and elsewhere have focused attention on the position of journalists faced with legal action aimed at discovering the identity of confidential sources. It is widely accepted in the journalism community that journalists have an ethical obligation to protect the identity of confidential sources. The obligation derives from the central role that journalism plays in democracy, yet in South Africa it may bring journalists into conflict with legal measures aimed at forcing disclosure, such as Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Journalists may find themselves in a position where they have to choose between acting ethically or upholding the law. This article explores the rationale for the protection of confidential sources and compares the normative ethics and jurisprudence relating to protection of sources in various jurisdictions, including South Africa. It examines processes currently under way to establish legal protection of journalists against forced disclosure, considers a number of options that may be pursued. It concludes that any such measure should cover both criminal and civil proceedings, and suggests that the answer may lie in the proper interpretation of the right to freedom of expression to accord a qualified privilege to journalists."

 

[triforcharity]

No, he is in favor of being allowed to commit minor crimes to prevent more serious crimes or effects.

Burglary and computer hacking are not minor crimes. Both are felonies, and computer hacking falls under federal crimes.

And in most countries such a thing is allowed, e.g. you see in your neighbors cellar someone chained and in bad shape, you go over, kick in the door and free the imprisoned. The "kick in the door" is on itself a crime, especially as your neighbor is unlikely to give consent (he probably wants to keep the person prisoner and preferably does not want anyone to know about that). Yet you are allowed to do, because kicking in the door is likely pretty minor to whatever crime your neighbor commited vs the prisoner in his cellar.

That is allowed for any citizen, even for journalists.

Kicking in the door, to save another person's life, is not a crime, ever.

As gathering information might also avert crimes, normal journalistic activity might sometimes be similar, the journalist preventing some major crime by commiting some minor.

Nope, journalists are not law enforcement. Skirting the law, even if the ends are a benefit, is not allowed without LE.

Of course this leads to the problem of using such evidence in court, but that does not change that journalists and anyone else is allowed to act that way.

Um, no. Not in the least.

Edit for better example:
I just realized the example above might still fall under defense, so this one:
Neighbor is away and his car is parked in front of your house, barbecue in front of house goes wrong, fire threatens to jump over to your house, a fire extinguisher is on backseat of neighbors car, you smash in window, grab fire extinguisher and extinguish the fire -> no crimnal charges (though your neighbor can sue you to pay for the damage), although it is no variation of self defense.

Terrible example.

 

[triforcharity]

But journalist do not investigate based on chance, a journalist might have reason to suspect that there is criminal activity. And if he has good reason to believe so, actions he commits in investigation, might (!!!!!) be excused.

It doesn't matter. He must work WITHIN the law to do so. In the US, the evidence he gathered by criminal means would most likely be tossed by the courts as inadmissible, and any further evidence gained from that evidence, would most likely be tossed also.

 

[triforcharity]

They are not doing the job of the LEO.

Yes, in the situation you described, they most certainly are. Hacking into another persons email, is a crime. Even the police cannot just hack someone's computer. LE need a warrant to do so.

EU human rights takes into account criminal activity. For example the right to property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property#Regional_human_rights_instruments

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. (2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

So a journalist here can rightly say property that is being illegally handled or is stolen does not come with the protections lawful possession does.

This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

 

[triforcharity]

Problem is when these agencies are part of the coverup. For example, in the US, the powers that be have a vested interest in the public not finding out just how ineffective, and even counter-effective, that the TSA is. Journalists have been harassed by government agencies for pointing out just how bad TSA is.

When it's the law enforcement agencies themselves that you're blowing the whistle on, how likely are they going to give permissions to violate a few laws to demonstrate problems with said agencies?

There are always other agencies. For instance, an FBI coverup, the US Department of Justice would be the correct agency to work with. The TSA would again, fall under either US DOJ or the Department of Homeland Security.

If it's a small local agency, then another agency could investigate, or the State's Attorney. Or, in Florida for example, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement would be appropriate. There's always another agency.

 

[Nessie]

The media in South Africa are governed by a number of bodies.

These are self regulating bodies which apply to the media and not to private citizens, so IMO, it is not correct to equate a private citizen to a journalist.

If the state wishes to hide it's wrong doings from the public eye, then yes, the media can be excused for a reasonable number of transgressions of the law.

Now, I am not advocating that journalists should be immune to murder or other such serious criminal charges, but if they hack e-mails and the like to uncover criminal and fraudulent activities and then refuse to divulge their sources, IMO that is acceptable.

Thankfully the media in this country are by and large a courageous group of individuals who willfully put their lives in harms way in the pursuit of the truth.

I think you and I are on the same wave length here. A couple of scenarios.

A journalist follows a government minister who is suspected of taking bribes. He follows the minister for a few days (illegal as persistent following is a breach of the peace or an offence under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) and is then able to photo the minister with a private company official where they exchange packages. He uses that to confront the minister who confesses to bribery, is reported to the police and the journalist gets a front page story.

A journalist is doing a story on a suspected drugs baron whose gang have been ruling a housing estate with threats and intimidation for a few years and no one wants to speak to the police. The journalist befriends and gains the trust of a few residents who give him enough for a story on the baron with a view to exposing who he really is, enough for a story in the newspaper and of help to the police. During the meetings with the residents the journalist smokes some cannabis as a way to gain their trust.

Would those who say journalists are citizens and should get no leeway want those journalists prosecuted?

 

[Skwinty]

I think you and I are on the same wave length here. A couple of scenarios.

Here's another.

A whistle blower approaches a journalist with tales of government fraud and corruption. Said journalist requires evidence.

Whistle blower and journalist conspire to get unauthorized access to corrupt government officials e-mails and documents.

Journalist publishes story, refuses to divulge his source and the prosecuting authorities investigate and prosecute the government offcial.

Works for me. Journalist has broken the law and has privilege not afforded to whistle blower.

 

[Nessie]

Fair enough. I'm looking for clarity, not oversimplification. Thanks for pointing out when I've gone too far.


I agree. In fact, I'd say this not just about the press but about any citizen. I think where you and I disagree is on the question of whether the law should provide for special legal exemptions for "the press".

I would be interested on your thoughts on the scenarios I posted above of journalists breaking the law.

Does your nation seriously lack a properly authorized and regulated agency that can conduct such investigations within the boundaries of the law?

Please clarify what you mean there by agency. What agency are you referring to?

Why can't they pass themselves off as citizens to investigate crime?

I could see how that would work, A journalist poses as a citizen and constituency member of an MP to go to one of his surgeries to ask a few questions about a local issue.

Doctors go through rigorous screening and training, and they must still operate within the law.

Police go through rigorous screening and training, and they must still operate within the law.

My point was that doctors and police have special powers and privileges that are not shared with anyone else in their profession. Indeed most jobs have such, so why not journalists?

What you're proposing is a special class of citizens, lacking in the kind of screening and training imposed on doctors and police, but who should anyway be granted extralegal powers of special investigation, so that they can, by virtue of having a "code of concuct" and an "editorial [board]" go above and beyond what is the right of every citizen and the duty of every law enforcement agent.

I have advocated no such thing. I regard journalists as a trained, qualified professionals. Citizens don't just wake up one day and go to a newspaper and get a job and are sent to investigate corrupt MPs. Journalists are screened in as much as teachers and doctors are. It is not any old person like criminals who get to be journalists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/trainee-schemes/jts

http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/workin/journalism.htm

As for Code of Conduct

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/intro.html

and editorial, these are not things to be dismissed, but.......

What does this mean, in the context of this thread? Are you advocating a crackdown on journalists who display a careless attitude about the law?

The hacking scandal showed that the press went too far and started applying the "public interest" to celebrity tittle tattle and caused disruption to police investigations by their actions. In one murder enquiry the press practically named a man for as the killer, making his life hell. He was the landlord of the victim, it turned out to be a neighbouring tenant in the same house who was the killer.

As a result of that an inquiry took place, the Leveson Report, which means that instead of the press regulating itself under the PCC there will be laws passed which will mean journalists will face far stricter sanctions if their break their own code of conduct.

And far more regulation and oversight, as well.

And I think you'll find that what you are callling "exemptions in the law" are actually an extensive body of law in their own right, explicitly spelling out the legal limits imposed on government agents.

OK, put it that way if you want to, it amounts to the same thing.

If you want journalists to operate within the same legal limits as the police, then you should spell out those legal limits, just like they are spelled out for the police. Better yet: make them police.

Even better: Since you already have police, let journalists be citizens who have made it their profession to investigate and report information, and let them be governed by the same laws that govern every other citizen.

No way! What have you got against an independent press? Do you not realise they are a vital part to maintaining our freedoms and are the watchers of the likes of the police?

Wrong about what? The value you place on journalism as a branch of government? Your elevation of journalists above the common citizenry? I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

Journalist are not a branch of government and they are above the citizen in as much as doctors or teachers are above the citizen in that there are some things they can do others are not allowed to do.

But that's not the scenario you're proposing.

What you're proposing is that a journalist should be able to go before a judge and asked to be excused for breaking the law, because they did it for a good reason, and because they're a journalist. You're proposing that any citizen, having the same good reason, should not receive the same treatment before the law if they are not a journalist.

No I am not.

I think that, if anything, it should be the other way around: Any leniency a journalist can elicit from the courts, any citizen in the same circumstance should also be able to elicit. Nothing about carrying a press pass should set one citizen apart from another, before the law.

As I said journalists have powers and training that are unique to them just as doctors and teachers do. I suspect you thin that it is easy to go out and do a journalists job and any old person is up to it. It has no skills, no need for training and is menial work.

Hamstring them how? By rejecting your proposal to make them magically above the law in a way not regulated (as are government agents), nor clearly defined?

Please define magically above the law. They are regulated and their work is defined. I really do not think you know what a journalist is.

Your figure of speech fails anyway. A journalist has to have hamstrings, before they can be cut. But journalists do not yet have the extralegal powers you're proposing. So far in history, they have had to get by with the same legal rights, privileges, and constraints as their fellow citizens. You can't have it both ways: Journalists can't be an important protection under their current restrictions, and simultaneously be crippled under their current restrictions.

Not only that but under the current restrictions, all citizens are equally empowered to investigate and report information. You don't have to rely on some special class of people to find the information and feed it to you: You can go out and get it yourself, on your own authority as a citizen.

Citizens are not the same as journalists, in the same way citizens are not the same as doctors or teachers.

 

[Nessie]

Interesting. Can you clarify something for me?

My profession is something other than journalism. Within my profession, I am governed by self-regulating bodies. The most notable such body is my employer, who grants me certain privileges and authorities not enjoyed by the vast majority of my fellow citizens. But I would say I am still equal to a private citizen, in the eyes of the law.

Is it different for journalists and their self-regulating bodies, in your country? Does being a journalist member of these bodies entitle one to a privileged position before the law, not enjoyed by other citizens?

Yes. They do and should get some leeway with regards to the law. This should become clearer when you answer the scenarios being put to you.

Here is another. A journalist sees a senior top brass member of the armed forces on a train. When he gets off the train he accidentally leaves some files behind on the seat next to him. The journalist has a look at the files which are top secret and have details about a failed military action in Afghanistan. It will make a front page story due to the carelessness of the top brass and the details in the files which are very much in the public interest. The journalist has committed theft and breached Data Protection Act by taking and reading the files. The files are returned to the top brass and the story is published. Do you arrest the journalist?

 

[Nessie]

Yes, in the situation you described, they most certainly are. Hacking into another persons email, is a crime. Even the police cannot just hack someone's computer. LE need a warrant to do so.

No they are acting as a journalist with different ends and reporting practices to the police. The police in Scotland for hacking need authorisation under RIPSA 2000 (RIPA in England)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/11/section/1

Journalists have the same boundaries as the police under their own Code of Conduct that they have to show their actions are reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest.

If either a police officer or journalist just hacks someone's computer they can end up in prison or out of a job.

This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

It shows that in Europe you lose your rights when you are committing crime, so how can a journalist be breaching someone's rights when they do not have them any more?

 

[Xulld]

I would not be as strict as you guys. Freedom of speech and the press is an important defence against tyranny, way more than guns. I think that the press needs to be given a bot of leeway where journalists can show the story has a benefit that outweighs the law that is broken.

So if a journalist breaks a firearms law to show how easy it is to do, or smuggles a gun past airport security, or steals files which show corruption or uses drugs to uncover a drugs smuggling operation. I would allow that.

You way weakens the press and protects wrong doing.

It protects the principles of fair play and equal protection under the law without regard to the claims made regarding the journalists story. Chain of evidence is also quite important and really cannot be guaranteed, reporters after all do not have protected immunity, are not under an oath and should not be trusted as if they are . . .

Mock astonishment because the UK laws are not draconian.

UK Libel law and the whole guilty until proven innocent is draconian IMHO.

As I said journalists have powers and training that are unique to them just as doctors and teachers do.

LOL

What powers do journalists have? Should they fill out an application for the MDC?

If a doctor read my mail to determine I was lying about smoking and then used that info to submit a fraud case to an insurance company I would expect him to be prosecuted for breaking the law in reading my mail illegally.

Nothing in his special "powers", training, skills, or duties gives him that right, and nothing you have argued comes even close to a rational reason for that to change.

 

[Skwinty]

If a doctor read my mail to determine I was lying about smoking and then used that info to submit a fraud case to an insurance company I would expect him to be prosecuted for breaking the law in reading my mail illegally.

Quite rightly so, and for the insurance company to deny your claim.

The fact of the matter being that this example has nothing to do with press freedom, journalistic privilege or public interest.