Comments on: Legal http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/ Ethics, Law & Good Practice Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:18:44 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Daniel Chandranayagam http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Daniel Chandranayagam Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:18:44 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-90 Again, if you contact the person, and give the person a time frame in which to respond, is it fair to continue with publication if the person has failed to respond? Again, if you contact the person, and give the person a time frame in which to respond, is it fair to continue with publication if the person has failed to respond?

]]> By: Sue Russell http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-55 Sue Russell Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:48:19 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-55 That is true, Erik. The example I was given by a publisher's lawyer: a public figure may tell you that his mother has had a boob job. To say so in print would be an invasion of the mother's privacy *unless* she too was a public figure of some sort, or had given interviews and generally relinquished her anonymity in a demonstrable fashion. That is true, Erik. The example I was given by a publisher’s lawyer: a public figure may tell you that his mother has had a boob job. To say so in print would be an invasion of the mother’s privacy *unless* she too was a public figure of some sort, or had given interviews and generally relinquished her anonymity in a demonstrable fashion.

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Erik Sherman Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:34:56 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-54 Some states do have freedom of information statutes of their own. Some states do have freedom of information statutes of their own.

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Erik Sherman Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:32:08 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-53 The standard is called "actual malice." Also, a non-public figure might be able to sue for breach of the right of privacy, even if what is published is true. The standard is called “actual malice.” Also, a non-public figure might be able to sue for breach of the right of privacy, even if what is published is true.

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Erik Sherman Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:30:14 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-52 It's not enough for what is printed to be factual. There have been court cases where news outlets lost a libel case because they printed facts, but arranged them in such a way as to create an impression or effect that the court considered libelous. It’s not enough for what is printed to be factual. There have been court cases where news outlets lost a libel case because they printed facts, but arranged them in such a way as to create an impression or effect that the court considered libelous.

]]> By: Anita Bartholomew http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/legal/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Anita Bartholomew Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:27:07 +0000 http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/6-legal/#comment-43 Although there have been many attempts to grant reporters special rights to refuse to testify in federal court, the consequences of creating a "federal shield law" that exempts reporters from subpoenas haven't been well-thought-out, in my opinion. Such a law would also have to define who is and isn't a journalist, leading to de facto licensing by the federal government — a very real danger to first amendment freedoms. This would grant government considerable control over the press which is what the first amendment is specifically meant to avert. Although news organizations lobby for a federal shield law, the better policy is to educate reporters that, if they grant absolute anonymity and/or secrecy to sources, this may mean the reporters will pay legal consequences. A "get-out-of-jail-free" card may sound preferable to risking prison to protect a source. But the potential damage to freedom of the press is exponentially greater if government, by granting special exemptions to journalists, gets to set the criteria for who is permitted to be labeled a journalist. Although there have been many attempts to grant reporters special rights to refuse to testify in federal court, the consequences of creating a “federal shield law” that exempts reporters from subpoenas haven’t been well-thought-out, in my opinion.

Such a law would also have to define who is and isn’t a journalist, leading to de facto licensing by the federal government — a very real danger to first amendment freedoms. This would grant government considerable control over the press which is what the first amendment is specifically meant to avert.

Although news organizations lobby for a federal shield law, the better policy is to educate reporters that, if they grant absolute anonymity and/or secrecy to sources, this may mean the reporters will pay legal consequences.

A “get-out-of-jail-free” card may sound preferable to risking prison to protect a source. But the potential damage to freedom of the press is exponentially greater if government, by granting special exemptions to journalists, gets to set the criteria for who is permitted to be labeled a journalist.

]]>