Journalists and the law

[triforcharity]

Why not let any old citizen, without training, proper authorisation, code of conduct or other regulation become a teacher?

It's not ******* illegal to be a teacher! It IS illegal to be a hacker or a burglar!

In the same way that a citizen who has information about a crime should go to the police and not turn vigilante, a citizen who has a story should go to the press. Or they should join the police or become a journalist.

But yet, you want a journalist to be allowed to do the job of the police. Amazing.

 

[triforcharity]

You are missing my point that many jobs come with certain privileges that can only be had if you get that job and to get that job you need to pass certain requirements. By that I mean, for example, the difference between the police and private detectives. PIs cannot pass themselves off as police officers and they do not have the privileges the police do.

I think we are arguing past each other now as I think of journalists as trained professionals who with the regulated job get certain privileges, like the police. You think of any old person who wants to call them self a journalist as a journalist, like a PI who poses and acts like the police.

Are there any other jobs that make you able to disregard the law for whatever reason? I mean, sure, firefighters and police officers and Medics can speed while en-route to a call, but, really? Breaking into someone's computer to get a possible story, come on.....

 

[Nessie]

You consider burglary and computer fraud minor? WTF is wrong with the UK justice system?

Out of context. If a break in or computer hack was done to uncover major wrong doing, it was the only way of uncovering major wrong doing and such was shown to be in the public interest, the UK courts have the option of not prosecuting a journalist and accepting their defence of public interest.

It's not ******* illegal to be a teacher! It IS illegal to be a hacker or a burglar!

Missing the point. In the UK to be a teacher you have to be trained and properly certified. In the USA can you be employed as a teacher and teach without any accreditation or qualifications at all?

But yet, you want a journalist to be allowed to do the job of the police. Amazing.

Wrong. I understand the difference between journalism and the police, sadly you do not by thinking they even can do the job of the police. Scientists carry out investigations, does that mean they can do the job of the police?

Are there any other jobs that make you able to disregard the law for whatever reason? I mean, sure, firefighters and police officers and Medics can speed while en-route to a call, but, really? Breaking into someone's computer to get a possible story, come on.....

I cannot think of any other jobs that have public interest as a defence, but I can think of individuals such as whistle blowers who could claim such.

 

[theprestige]

There is no specific journalism law, instead there have been legal rulings on specific events such as the earlier case of hacking being ruled as in the public interest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/18/sky-news-reporter-cleared-canoe-man-hacking

Did this ruling depend on the hacker being a "journalist"? If so, how did the ruling define "journalist"? Or did the ruling depend on the hacker acting in the public interest?

If that is the case, why have you been arguing journalists should not be "an elite class of citizens with special legal exemptions or extralegal privileges"?

Because I firmly believe that journalists should not be such an elite class.

Also, because I'm trying to distinguish between two different things:

1) A special set of legal exemptions or extralegal privileges enjoyed only by "journalists" -- which I oppose; and

2) A set of legal protections afforded to any and all citizens (not just "journalists") who can show that their investigation and reporting is in the public interest -- which I support.

What I find increasingly amusing is that, while you are clearly advocating "journalists" as a special elite class of citizens, the privileges and exemptions you actually propose are ones that I would gladly accept for all citizens.

You are missing my point that many jobs come with certain privileges that can only be had if you get that job and to get that job you need to pass certain requirements. By that I mean, for example, the difference between the police and private detectives. PIs cannot pass themselves off as police officers and they do not have the privileges the police do.

I agree that many jobs come with certain privileges. I don't agree that the job of "journalism" should come with the privilege of elevated freedom of the press status, beyond what is enjoyed by all citizens.

I think we are arguing past each other now as I think of journalists as trained professionals who with the regulated job get certain privileges, like the police. You think of any old person who wants to call them self a journalist as a journalist, like a PI who poses and acts like the police.

I think your idea of journalists as trained professionals serving the public interest in a manner similar to the police is naively romantic.

I think that investigating and reporting information in the public interest is the right and duty of every citizen, not just those who choose to label themselves as "journalists" or who choose "journalism" as their profession.

I think the legal protections extended to someone acting "in the public interest" should be extended to anyone, if they can in fact show they acted in the public interest.

The amusing part is, you already agree that this requirement (showing in court that they acted in the public interest) should be imposed on self-styled "journalists". If meeting this requirement is enough for journalists, why not for everybody?

Missing the point. In the UK to be a teacher you have to be trained and properly certified. In the USA can you be employed as a teacher and teach without any accreditation or qualifications at all?

Yes. Some organizations impose accreditation requirements for various reasons. Most prospective employers will, of course, expect applicants to have certain qualifications. If you want to teach in a government-funded school, to meet government standards, you will probably have to have some kind of accreditation, and meet some kind of minimum qualification requirement.

This is true in "journalism" too, of course: Some publishers will choose to only hire journalists who have graduated from some journalism school, or who have some qualifications in the field.

But in neither case do I think that various individual organizations' hiring practices should form the basis for creating an elite class of citizens with special legal privileges.

And in both cases, it is entirely possible for a private citizen, with no particular accreditation or qualifications, to undertake the basic activities of teaching or journalism. I have already given the example of private tutors. You have already hinted that anyone with a blog might be entitled to the same legal status you would extend to "journalists".

I cannot think of any other jobs that have public interest as a defence, but I can think of individuals such as whistle blowers who could claim such.

Indeed. Why shouldn't anyone who can claim public interest as a defense, and show it in court, be acquitted? Why should "journalist" have anything to do with it?

 

[Xulld]

When a journalist gets a degree in law and becomes an officer of the law, that is when they can be allowed to help enforce the law.

. . and even then they should not be above it at all whatsoever at any time.

 

[Nessie]

Did this ruling depend on the hacker being a "journalist"? If so, how did the ruling define "journalist"? Or did the ruling depend on the hacker acting in the public interest?


Because I firmly believe that journalists should not be such an elite class.

Also, because I'm trying to distinguish between two different things:

1) A special set of legal exemptions or extralegal privileges enjoyed only by "journalists" -- which I oppose; and

2) A set of legal protections afforded to any and all citizens (not just "journalists") who can show that their investigation and reporting is in the public interest -- which I support.

What I find increasingly amusing is that, while you are clearly advocating "journalists" as a special elite class of citizens, the privileges and exemptions you actually propose are ones that I would gladly accept for all citizens.

The difference between us is that since actions deemed in the public interest which break the law need regulating, I do not think any old person should be able to do that. That is why only the police can search for stolen property and they need to have been granted a warrant by a JP/sheriff/magistrate to do so. That is why I say only a journalist under their code of conduct granted by an editor should have the power to break a minor law in the public interest. I do not think it should be a free for all.

If a citizen comes across something that is breaking the law they should go to the police. If they come across something in the public interest they should go to the press.

I agree that many jobs come with certain privileges. I don't agree that the job of "journalism" should come with the privilege of elevated freedom of the press status, beyond what is enjoyed by all citizens.

Why single out journalists for that new status of in effect no status? Why not let everyone have the same status and then citizens can go and search houses for stolen property, without warrant or permission form an authority?

I think your idea of journalists as trained professionals serving the public interest in a manner similar to the police is naively romantic.

I think that investigating and reporting information in the public interest is the right and duty of every citizen, not just those who choose to label themselves as "journalists" or who choose "journalism" as their profession.

I think the legal protections extended to someone acting "in the public interest" should be extended to anyone, if they can in fact show they acted in the public interest.

The amusing part is, you already agree that this requirement (showing in court that they acted in the public interest) should be imposed on self-styled "journalists". If meeting this requirement is enough for journalists, why not for everybody?

As above, I don't think it is right to have a free for all with us all granted investigatory powers over each other. Otherwise, what will you do if you find out I have employed someone to write and publish stories on you and when you try and stop it I claim press fredom and there is no regulatory body to stop me from continuing?

Yes. Some organizations impose accreditation requirements for various reasons. Most prospective employers will, of course, expect applicants to have certain qualifications. If you want to teach in a government-funded school, to meet government standards, you will probably have to have some kind of accreditation, and meet some kind of minimum qualification requirement.

This is true in "journalism" too, of course: Some publishers will choose to only hire journalists who have graduated from some journalism school, or who have some qualifications in the field.

I think you will find that without training and qualification you will have no chance of being employed as a journalist, unless you are 16 and are get a job that includes training towards qualifications.

But in neither case do I think that various individual organizations' hiring practices should form the basis for creating an elite class of citizens with special legal privileges.

And in both cases, it is entirely possible for a private citizen, with no particular accreditation or qualifications, to undertake the basic activities of teaching or journalism. I have already given the example of private tutors. You have already hinted that anyone with a blog might be entitled to the same legal status you would extend to "journalists".

The fallacy of anyone can do that, which is a fallacy because in effect anyone can, but not all will be any good at it and some may be positively destructive trying to do it. So society in recognition of that fallacy makes people train and qualify for all jobs or allow employers to sack people who cannot do a job. That goes from shelf stackers to rocket scientists. I could be a shelf stacker and I would be able to do the job with ease. I could be a rocket scientist, but I would struggle and possibly end up blowing myself up.

Indeed. Why shouldn't anyone who can claim public interest as a defense, and show it in court, be acquitted? Why should "journalist" have anything to do with it?

For the same reason anyone cannot just go into a house and search it for stolen property. Only people employed so that they come under regulatory powers and supervision should be able to do such.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow. This just baffles my mind. Unbelievable. The mental gymnastics on display here are some of the best I've seen.

Oh, and you keep saying that burglary and hacking are minor crimes. They're not, remember?

 

[Nessie]

Wow. This just baffles my mind. Unbelievable. The mental gymnastics on display here are some of the best I've seen.

Please example that claim.

Oh, and you keep saying that burglary and hacking are minor crimes. They're not, remember?

It is about proportionality, the crime compared to the public interest. Do you have public interest in the USA where people who have committed crimes are not prosecuted as it would not be in the public interest to do so?

 

[triforcharity]

Um, post 146 is a good one. It's yours.

If you burglarize something in the US you're most likely going to be prosecuted. Giving someone a free pass, which apparently you in the UK do, doesn't typically happen here. It's rare. Now there are times when a prosecutor will give immunity or lesser sentence to a suspect who will testify against someone else, but it's not a common occurance.

 

[Nessie]

Um, post 146 is a good one. It's yours.

If you burglarize something in the US you're most likely going to be prosecuted. Giving someone a free pass, which apparently you in the UK do, doesn't typically happen here. It's rare. Now there are times when a prosecutor will give immunity or lesser sentence to a suspect who will testify against someone else, but it's not a common occurance.

I am not aware of a journalist breaking into somewhere to get information. I think the closest to that has been bin raking, theft by finding or handling stolen property whereby journalists find or receive information that has been in effect stolen.

There is no free pass for journalists to break into property in the UK.

 

[triforcharity]

But yet you've repeatedly said that they would if it was for the benefit of the community?

 

[Nessie]

But yet you've repeatedly said that they would if it was for the benefit of the community?

I said it as an example of what may be acceptable, but it would be an absolute extreme which you have tried to make out is cart blanche freedom for journalist to break the law.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's my position. Nobody is above the law, except very special circumstances. Like police officers speeding. That's about it. (US law)

UK law is different, that's fine. I don't have to agree with it. Just as you don't have to agree with US law.

 

[Nessie]

Here's my position. Nobody is above the law, except very special circumstances. Like police officers speeding. That's about it. (US law)

UK law is different, that's fine. I don't have to agree with it. Just as you don't have to agree with US law.

Could you answer my question about is there such a thing in the USA as public interest, whereby people will not be prosecuted for crimes they committed if it is not in the public interest? Or a journalist can use such as a defence?

 

[triforcharity]

No, not in the strictest definition. A journalist who breaks the law, just to get a story that will be of public interest, will almost certainly be prosecuted for the crime.

It's not a written law, no.

 

[PitPat]

Mother Jones released a tape of Senator McConnell discussing political strategy with his aides and he's claiming the room was bugged. He's asking for an FBI investigation.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ions-were-bugged-seeks-fbi-investigation?lite

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign has asked federal authorities to help it identify the source of a recording of private strategy sessions earlier this year involving research into a potential opponent, actress Ashley Judd.

McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said Tuesday that the campaign is working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's office in Louisville to uncover who recorded a Feb. 2 meeting in Kentucky – attended by McConnell himself -- which was published earlier today by the liberal magazine Mother Jones.

McConnell's campaign has vehemently denied that anyone from its staff was responsible for the leak, and has begun to pursue a criminal investigation into the matter.
"Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings," said McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton. "Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Sen. McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished will presumably be the subject of a criminal investigation."

In the tapes, McConnell and a handful of aides are heard discussing opposition research against would-be Democratic challengers next fall, most prominently Judd. While Judd eventually declined to challenge McConnell for re-election in 2014, the aides were heard on-tape discussing research into Judd's background, including her mental health history and religion.

I'm no fan of McConnell, but I'm not sure what public interest this would be serving. It's entirely possible the recording was leaked by an inside source, but the MJ is reluctant to divulge in what manner they obtained it.

In any case, it's sleazy political maneuvering, but not all that shocking and they certainly didn't do anything criminal. It will be interesting to see exactly who was responsible for that recording.