Introduction
In recent years the modern journalist has to tackle many complicated stories that may face problems due to law restrictions. These include defamation, contempt of court and reporting restrictions. They may harm a stories quality and quantity but must be abided. If these laws are to be broken the journalist could face anything from expensive court cases to up to 2 year in prison. In the modern age laws can be regularly broken without realization .As media platforms such as social media are rising in popularity so is the spread of news, highlighting any and all faults. In this report I will research how a journalist has to evolve to fit the modern world and the laws that comes with it.
Defamation
In the modern age there are many ways that we can harm a persons reputation without realizing it using such platforms as social media which allows a statement to be spread worldwide within a matter of minutes. This has lead to law being put place to stop this action known as defamation. The official definition of defamation is "The communication of a false statement that harms a reputation". Defamation can come in two forms eatheir from slander or libel. Slander is the use of spoken words or a shared message to create the damage for example gossip or the spread of harmful rumors. Libel is instead the use of the written word used most typically in print media such as Magazines and newspapers. This is often the most popular means of causing defamation as libel is easier to prove then slander where the evidence that can be shown in court if limited where as in a libel case there is solid evidence.
Journalists are not the only cause of defamation as the digital age has progressed it has brought active community with it allowing people to share a whole range of wider opinions that can break many of the laws previously connected mostly to journalists. This has lead to reoccurring cases involving statements said on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. These sites allow anyone and everyone to have an opinion that could be read by thousands. Leading to the public not only being easily targeted as victim of defamation but they could can also as easily be the cause of it. Once the act of defamation has been committed a court case is likely to ensue mostly just involving the larger case between businesses and media outlets. This happens mostly due to the cost of a defamation court case, this cost also means that many sort the issues on their own accord although cases so happen all the time but it does irradiate smaller cases that are sometimes only gossip and haven't had a large effect on either the victim . This has been criticized but has not been changed yet.
Once a court case has started there are many defenses that may be used. One defense is the use of privilege this is when a journalist can claim innocence as the information stated was from an absolute or qualified source. If the information was absolute it would have been taken from a case covered in court or the house of parliament. The journalist may say that their statement was qualified this means that the information was provided from an official police statement. This only works if it was printed without malice or its just being interesting to the public. Overall, privilege is a defense that easily allows a journalist the right to publish correct information. An another common law defense is the use of fair comment this specifically allows journalists to express a statement that may be true because of public interest. This can be done as long as the statements made do not happen without intention to harm the reported a person.
Public interest is a common statement when speaking about journalism as it is often used as a loophole within defamation cases as the defense itself allows a journalist to publish or state information on the ground that the public has to know. This is specifically the reason journalists are used within communities as one of their main purposes is to unveil any issues that may effect the public life's for example injustices with the law or scams within the government. This information needs to be published but sometimes journalists may cross the line and publish information that is just interesting to the public for example celebrity gossip. Interesting to the public stories may delve deep and can harm people reputations just because its interesting, this can see mostly through the example of The Leveson inquiry where many journalists publishes information that they stated was public interest allowing them to justify hacking phones and publishing false information. The line between the defense public interest and an interesting to the public are often blurred, causing strong injustices within the system that are yet to be fixed.
In 2013 The Defemation Act of 1996 was replaced due to its lack of protection covering the new cases caused by new media such as social networks.The recent Act changes that were made include changing the court proceedings as now the victim has to show series harm or damages this maybe in the form of losing money from there organisation or having a large impact on their everyday lives. They have also altered it to suit the need to include modern technology as word can be spread faster then before, to fix this they have introduced a defense for people using social media sites. This means people creating content that harms people through Facebook or Twitter can now be accused of Defamation. The main problem they have tried to stop is the use of fair- comment , public image or honest opinion within the court situations as this has been use for many years to defend statements within the media. This arises the problem between what is public interest and what is interesting to the public as one can help a journalist with their piece and the other can place them within Defemation.
To delve deeper into the Defemation Act I have found an example of a libel case. The recent libel case that sees a professional typist take to Twitter after not being payed for work she completed for Resolution production . She is know facing libel court costs as she tweeted straight to Important people in the industry such as Sir Alan Sugar and the owner of the company itself.The two parties involved include the 55 year old typist Lesley Kemp and a the production company Resolution production. The case started after Kemp completed some transcription work for the company on a freelance basis. The production company then failed to pay her the £150 she was owed and when she did receive money two months after the work was completed they docked her £25 for ' bank charges'. After this the typist took to twitter and tweeted pleas to the business owner Kirby Keans and other business Vips including Alan Sugar, Theo Pathitas and Duncan Bannatyne. In this pleas she tried to name and shame the company for their lack of professionalism. This was when the company hit back with the libel court case. There was no direct statement published from the company in question . Instead Resolution production has claimed that they want to the damages to be paid for an up to value of £50,000. After this the typist took legal advice to find that if she lost the case she could be paying the court cost and fines at a minimum of £100,000.The case is still yet to go to court although it has been stated that it might not. Although people have come together to help Kemp by raising £2000 for initial court costs. I think that this story was mainly published due to the connections it holds to celebrities as they were witnesses to the case , there is also an community effect that is created by the people trying to help Kemp raise the funds to proceed to stop her bad treatment. This community spirit allows you to empathize with the story although it may not involve a company or journalist. It does show that anyone is at risk or could claim Defemation. This just goes to prove that all people especially journalists need to be trained and aware of the problems that they could incur due to being unaware of the law.(1)
Contempt of court
Contempt of court is the control of court proceeding by restricting the influence of information that is published during 'active proceedings' that may sway the judges or jury's overall decision. It mainly exists to protect court and the justice that it can provide as the accused are Innocent till proven guilty. This is covered by the Contempt of Court Act (CCA) 1981 which includes a 'strict liability rule' that prevents any publication or broadcast from affecting the decisions of the court. If this is broken the maximum prison sentence that can be given is 2 years. This highlights that all journalist must be informed of these laws as it is easily broken with the littlest information. In the modern age this law is becoming more difficult to regulate as news stories now can be spread worldwide within seconds and can come from a multitude of sources some even anonymously, this currently is not accounted for within the current Act which is increasingly becoming outdated.
In the UK there are two types of law; common law and statue law. Common law is law set by precedent this means that decisions made will be referenced from past court proceedings. This will also take into an account the punishment that the accused received. Statute law instead is the written law, this is entirely dependent on the legislation decided by laws that have been laid out by the government. These two types of law can change the way in which a court proceeds as cases dependent on legislation are often quicker and a sentence will be reached faster this aids a journalist who will receive clearer information that can be published faster. Instead common law in longer as a decision has to be made accurately a journalist may use to their advantage as when reporting they can refer to past court cases this puts them at less risk of breaking contempt of court.
A journalist can be limited by the term 'active proceedings' as within this time in court information can not be published as it may affect the justice given within court. When a court case is in active proceedings is hard to determine as it covers the majority of court proceedings from when the crime is committed till when a sentence or acquittal has been made. To understand this you have to know that a case starts as soon a crime has been committed, Soon after this an arrest or warrant for arrest will be put into place until a charge is made before going to trial which will start at magistrates and possibly proceed to crown court. This will result in jury deliberations that will count towards the ending in a final sentence or acquittal. If a journalist is to publish any information in detail once the crime has been committed they will be at risk of breaking contempt under common law where as if information is published or broadcast from the starts of court proceedings the law will be broken under statute law. In an ideal world any information should be published till the court proceedings have ended.
Contempt of court can be hard to determine as it is dependent on the situation. So they mainly determine a case firstly by its severity which can be dependent on a few other features including :
- Time : The time in between the story being printed or broadcast and the jury retiring to reach a verdict can change the story being within contempt. As the judgement may not be affected by the story if a verdict has already been decided. This is becoming harder and harder with modern technology as a story can be spread within minutes across the globe on multiple platforms.Even if the judgement has already been made there is still a case for contempt.
- Proximity : If the story is published in a different county or country the story may have not reached the trial yet leading to less risk of it affecting the case. To decide if this is a consideration the judge will have to weigh up the possibility and distance that story would have had to travel. This again like time has become more complex in the modern era as the story is likely to be published online which can be accessed easily and may reach the court within minutes.
- Initial impact; This decides how many people would have seen the story and whether the importance of the information was extenuated by the exposure of the story.
- Residual impact: This is whether the story has lasting memory as it may effect its victim in the long term damaging their reputation possibly causing a case of defamation.
Once all these factors have been taken in to consideration the punishment will be decided and the next steps may be taken. This may include the court proceedings being restarted as an effect from the story. Overall, breaking contempt of court may effect not only the journalist but the connected media outlet leading to large costs and effects in their reputation. This can be stopped and is stopped by law training for all active journalists.
As example of contempt of court is seen obviously through examples such as the Christopher Jefferies case. The case started with the murder of Jo Yates shortly the next door neighbor and landlord Christopher Jefferies was taken in for questioning as this happened information was published through the press about his 'unusual' past and some of his personality traits that could make him the kind of person to kill. This was all published while the proceeding where active from big tabloids such as The daily Mirror and The Sun. The publications put doubts within the minds or jurors leading the hounding of Jefferies by the media but also false judgement within the case itself. This false judgement was then discovered and Mr Jefferies was released. The press didn't stop publishing information about the case while it was active leading to a case of gross misconduct by breaking the contempt of court law. The newspapers where then forced to apologize. (2)
As example of contempt of court is seen obviously through examples such as the Christopher Jefferies case. The case started with the murder of Jo Yates shortly the next door neighbor and landlord Christopher Jefferies was taken in for questioning as this happened information was published through the press about his 'unusual' past and some of his personality traits that could make him the kind of person to kill. This was all published while the proceeding where active from big tabloids such as The daily Mirror and The Sun. The publications put doubts within the minds or jurors leading the hounding of Jefferies by the media but also false judgement within the case itself. This false judgement was then discovered and Mr Jefferies was released. The press didn't stop publishing information about the case while it was active leading to a case of gross misconduct by breaking the contempt of court law. The newspapers where then forced to apologize. (2)
Reporting Restrictions
Reporting restrictions are the laws that are in place to protect the proceeding of court and the people that are within them. A journalist will face many of these restrictions within their career, it is down to them and the media outlet to keep up to date with the laws, as they have to be aware of the laws that they could possible break. The most common case a journalist will face is restriction against publishing a persons identity whether this be because of their age or due to the nature of the case. This also restricts publishing any information that could lead to the discovery of their identity as this will limit the information that can be published.
Different cases maybe under different levels of protection and different reasons. Some maybe under automatic protection this also can be dependent on the case itself. If a journalist does not know the level of protection that is placed on a particular case they need to check with the authorities. Cases that maybe under protection include proceedings under the children s act, victims of sexual offences and
prelim hearings in magistrates court.A case that is dealing with victims of sexual offences will automatically place it's victims under reporting restrictions to protect their identities. This will help the victim not only to recover but will also protect them from any connected harassers and they do not face any harm due to the nature of the case.If any journalist does reveal a victims identity they will also be at risk of breaking contempt of court and reporting restrictions. This is punishable by upto 2 years in jail. If the victim is found to have placed malicious claim they will still be under protection until the court reaches a verdict.
There are many restrictions facing children within court as their identities are to be kept secret. This may only change if were trialed within an adult court. This is rare as most cases are covered through youth court but if there are extreme cases such as manslaughter or murder the circumstances change. If the case is moved to an adult court a judge can place a section 39 order on the child. This is put in place just like the reporting restrictions to hide the identity of the child. This is done to protect the childs future as under a restricted age a child is not really responsible for its actions. The section 39 may be removed at the end of a case although this is rarely done. This maybe due to public interest but this is entirely down to the judges decision.
A popular example of the impact of reporting restrictions can be seen through the case of James Bulger's murder. In this case a 2 year old was abducted and murdered by two young boys who throughout the case were referred to as 'boy A and boy B', due to the reporting restrictions placed on the case. This case became a centre point for public media attention due to the shock. This lead to them being found guilty by the judge Mr justice Morland who later lifted all reporting restrictions placed onto the case, allowing the media to reveal their identities.This lead to the boys in the future receiving new identities after being released.(3)
There are many restrictions facing children within court as their identities are to be kept secret. This may only change if were trialed within an adult court. This is rare as most cases are covered through youth court but if there are extreme cases such as manslaughter or murder the circumstances change. If the case is moved to an adult court a judge can place a section 39 order on the child. This is put in place just like the reporting restrictions to hide the identity of the child. This is done to protect the childs future as under a restricted age a child is not really responsible for its actions. The section 39 may be removed at the end of a case although this is rarely done. This maybe due to public interest but this is entirely down to the judges decision.
A popular example of the impact of reporting restrictions can be seen through the case of James Bulger's murder. In this case a 2 year old was abducted and murdered by two young boys who throughout the case were referred to as 'boy A and boy B', due to the reporting restrictions placed on the case. This case became a centre point for public media attention due to the shock. This lead to them being found guilty by the judge Mr justice Morland who later lifted all reporting restrictions placed onto the case, allowing the media to reveal their identities.This lead to the boys in the future receiving new identities after being released.(3)
conclusion
Defemation, contempt of court and reporting are all put in place to protect the proceeding of court and the people within it. It allows journalists to identify the information which they are allowed to publish due to the interest of the general public. This is why the journalist in our modern age should be fully trained in journalism laws.This will not only protect their careers but also the courts.A modern journalist needs to be able to create a story that follows all laws but to a quality that is still news-worthy.
Bibliography
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572, BBC News, 10th January 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment