Journalists and the law

[Nessie]

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 . . .

They have a code of conduct and generally can be trusted.

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

You mean innocent until proven guilty.

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

They do not have any specific powers, they have a job to do and I think they should be given some leeway when it is in the public's interest.

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.

Yes, doctors are not journalists!

 

[Xulld]

They have a code of conduct and generally can be trusted.

So a code of conduct is the same as an oath? Same consequences? Same liability? Same laws? Answer is no.

You mean innocent until proven guilty.

No I mean guilty until proven innocent. If accused of libel in the UK you go to court to prove your innocence. See Simon Singh.

They do not have any specific powers, they have a job to do and I think they should be given some leeway when it is in the public's interest.



Yes, doctors are not journalists!

Right . . .

 

[theprestige]

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?

Yes, I absolutely arrest the journalist.

 

[Nessie]

So a code of conduct is the same as an oath? Same consequences? Same liability? Same laws? Answer is no.


No I mean guilty until proven innocent. If accused of libel in the UK you go to court to prove your innocence. See Simon Singh.





Right . . .

For some reason I cannot split this post, so to the part about oaths, it depends on the code of conduct and opath as to what the liability is. For journalists and the police the sanctions are the same, fines, loss of job and/or go to prison.

The libel laws do need updating, but they are not guilty until proven innocent despite the slant you try and put on them. If someone feels they have been libelled, both go to court and argue their case.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, I absolutely arrest the journalist.

OK, what do you do about the top brass who left secret material on a train and reporting the disaster in Afghanistan?

 

[Skwinty]

Yes, I absolutely arrest the journalist.

Here is a link to this train story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7455084.stm

The story was obviously published without revealing any specific detail other than

" the documents, which cover fighting global terrorist funding, drugs trafficking and money laundering"

"batch of papers relating to intelligence assessments of Iraq and al-Qaeda"

"The confidential files were said to include details of how trade and banking systems could be manipulated to finance illicit weapons of mass destruction in Iran.
They also discussed methods of terrorist funding and the potential fraud of commercial websites and international internet payment systems."


The documents were obviously read by the media and the individual who found them.

No mention of arrests of members of public or journalists.

The intelligence and military officials involved were in a spot of trouble though.

 

[theprestige]

OK, what do you do about the top brass who left secret material on a train and reporting the disaster in Afghanistan?

What? No. If you want to talk about whether military officials should be above the law, start a thread for it.

You asked a question about a journalist, I answered a question about a journalist. Make your point.

 

[theprestige]

Here is a link to this train story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7455084.stm

The story was obviously published without revealing any specific detail other than

" the documents, which cover fighting global terrorist funding, drugs trafficking and money laundering"

"batch of papers relating to intelligence assessments of Iraq and al-Qaeda"

"The confidential files were said to include details of how trade and banking systems could be manipulated to finance illicit weapons of mass destruction in Iran.
They also discussed methods of terrorist funding and the potential fraud of commercial websites and international internet payment systems."

Congratulations: You don't have to worry about that material leaking to everybody who might ever read the story; you only have to worry about it leaking to everybody involvd in writing the story.

The documents were obviously read by the media and the individual who found them.

And the journalist who found them should have returned them to the proper authorities the moment he realized what he'd found. The other media persons should have refused to accept them and refrained from reading them, the moment they realized what they were.

No mention of arrests of members of public or journalists.

And I disagree with this outcome, though I would be open to the argument that the same privilege should be enjoyed by any citizen who finds themselves unexpectedly in possession of state secrets, and wishes to report to his fellow citizens on the lapse in security.

The intelligence and military officials involved were in a spot of trouble though.

As it should be, but also irrelevant to this thread.

 

[triforcharity]

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. .



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?

I don't care frankly how you do it in the UK or elsewhere. Here in the US, we have laws and rights that are not to be fooled with. Even criminals have rights before they're convicted, which include the right to be secure in their person and property.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

It's really simple. They broke the law, they should be charged.

 

[Nessie]

What? No. If you want to talk about whether military officials should be above the law, start a thread for it.

You asked a question about a journalist, I answered a question about a journalist. Make your point.

You have missed the point here. The scenario is that military top brass have been careless with secret files that show a disastrous military action. If you arrest journalists for reporting on such, how do you deal with the top brass? Let them get away with carelessness and keeping a disaster secret?

 

[Nessie]

I don't care frankly how you do it in the UK or elsewhere. Here in the US, we have laws and rights that are not to be fooled with. Even criminals have rights before they're convicted, which include the right to be secure in their person and property.

It's really simple. They broke the law, they should be charged.

I prefer the UK's system where criminals cannot hide behind the law and rights and use such protection to commit crime and prevent journalists from uncovering their criminal activities.

 

[triforcharity]

They should have to worry about your justice system more than journalists. Journalists are not law enforcement. They report news, not find criminals.

 

[VanillaCone]

What's the difference between a journalist and a regular citizen who is gathering and publishing information?

As a journalist, I'd say the difference is that I have a degree in journalism, which includes training in proper ethics and relevant laws. I also understand the proper way to go about documenting an event in a manner that promotes an accurate depiction and minimizes the influence of any personal bias.

Everyone seems to think that anyone can do what a journalist does. I disagree.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Everyone can help enforce the law without having to be a police officer.

 

[theprestige]

You have missed the point here. The scenario is that military top brass have been careless with secret files that show a disastrous military action. If you arrest journalists for reporting on such, how do you deal with the top brass? Let them get away with carelessness and keeping a disaster secret?

I think I misunderstood your original question.

To be clear: I have no problem with any citizen reporting on military carelessness with secret files. You find that happening, tell the world about it. I won't complain.

I do, however, have a problem with any citizen reporting on the contents of the files. I also have a problem with any citizen needlessly disseminating the contents.

Find the files, realize what they are, return them, report the breach. The end.

You want to discuss how the military should be punished when the mishandle classified documents, or the level of openness in military operations, start a thread.

But I will say this: if your concept of civilian oversight of your military depends on careless generals leaving classified documents unattended on trains, you've got really serious problems in your society, that go waaay beyond special privileges for some citizens.

 

[Aepervius]

Most people are aware of the efforts by journalists to investigate issues or make statements to provoke a response on an issue that concerns them. Journalists sometimes even overstep the law to generate publicity or call attention to a story. David Gregory's obvious violation of DC law on television is an example. Another forum member here wrote that journalists should be given leeway to let them do their job even it is means breaking the law.

How far should journalists be allowed to go to report (or make) the news?

Ranb


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9074547#post9074547

The journalist should respect the same law as everybody.

I see no reason to have people more equal than others. It invites for abuse.

 

[GeeMack]

The journalist should respect the same law as everybody.

I see no reason to have people more equal than others. It invites for abuse.

Obviously what is being advocated here is allowing anyone and everyone to break the law if their reason is to discover someone else breaking the law. And if it turns out a badder violation of the law is discovered than the law which was broken to discover it, the discoverer should be off the hook. Equal opportunity leeway. It's not just about journalists. It's about a free-for-all...

Everyone can help enforce the law without having to be a police officer.

 

[Skwinty]

These are the arguments for the "public interest defence" in South Africa. http://mg.co.za/article/2011-08-31-the-info-bill-is-antidemocratic

AGAINST:

"ANC MP Luwellyn Landers rejected the argument that allowing somebody who revealed a state secret to argue in court that he had done so for the public good would protect whistleblowers, promote transparency and fight corruption.

Instead, he said, the proposal plainly sought to protect the media from being sent to prison for publishing classified information.

After a heated debate, ANC members said a Democratic Alliance proposal to protect publication if the information was classified to conceal wrongdoing was tantamount to legalising theft."

FOR:

"The Mail & Guardian‘s editor-in-chief Nic Dawes said a public interest defence would protect not just journalists, but anyone who exposed serious misconduct such human rights violations, corruption and mismanagement.

DA MP Dene Smuts retorted: “We are talking about stealing. Theft and corruption is a big problem in our country and it is the duty of any democrat to expose it.”

She said that a public interest defence did not amount to legalising the exposure of legitimate state secrets.

“It is just a defence. If they get it wrong they still go to jail.”


The Inkatha Freedom Party’s Mario Oriani-Ambrosini urged the ANC to allow the defence and to trust the country’s judges to decide whether it applied.

“A judge is competent to weigh whether the public interest is better served through disclosure or through secrecy.”"

Given the state of affairs in Southern Africa, I am inclined to support the public interest defence in South Africa.