Should a newspaper be considered an accessory in a blackmail case? (Read inside)

[Martinus]

This is probably going to be a no-brainer for Americans since you guys have such a broad freedom of speech concept, but I wonder what Europeans think about the following.

First, some background/case study: A politician (who is married, but separated for 10 years, since his wife does not want to divorce him for religious reasons) invites some women to his house where he lives alone (it's unclear if they are hos or just some sluts he picked in a bar). There is alcohol, and possibly cocaine involved (but the latter is unclear). He gets drunk/stoned and gets taped by them while wearing a female dress and while they are putting a lipstick on him (he is clearly stoned out of his mind). Then they blackmail him about the video. When he refuses, they go to a tabloid which publishes the video on its website, while being aware that this is was used to blackmail the guy.

For the record, the only illegal part in his actions under Polish law would be coke possession - prostitution is not illegal.

Is what the newspaper did legit or should the newspaper face some legal consequences for this? Would it matter if, say, the guy was a defender of family values or a loud advocate of tough drug laws, for example, or not. Would the situation differ if he was not an elected politician, but say a celebrity (such as an actor or an athlete), or even a more low profile person (say, a doctor, or a lawyer or an academic professor)?

For the record, under the law presently in Poland the newspaper cannot be charged as an accessory to blackmail (blackmail however is a criminal offense in Poland) but there are talks about changing the law to make it so.

What do you think?

[Barrister]

Depends on how the newspaper came into possession of the pics.

[Martinus]

Depends on how the newspaper came into possession of the pics.

They got it from the blackmailers.

[Barrister]

Depends on how the newspaper came into possession of the pics.

They got it from the blackmailers.

Freely given?  Or as part of some some quid-pro-quo?

[sbr]

The newspaper didn't do anything wrong IMO.  They are in business to sell papers; if the pictures are true and were acquired legally there is no issue.

[Sheilbh]

I think, assuming the pictures were legally acquired, it's fair game.  Though in Britain probably not anymore since the whole Max Mosley story.

[Zanza]

We had some cases in the late 90s or early 2000s where Caroline of Monaco sued German papers for breach of privacy because they published pictures of her and her children in some secluded garden with a high wall around it. The German courts wanted to allow that, but they were struck down by the ECHR. Since then, celebrities have a guaranteed right to privacy in their private premises, meaning you can't just take pictures of them and publish them.

So while the tabloid would not be an accessory to blackmail here, it would still be liable for civil charges for damages by the politician in question for publishing the video.

Here is the Wiki with a link to the ECHR decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Hannover_v_Germany

[Brazen]

It falls under "public interest" as even a politician who is not a strong advocate of family values is expected to uphold a certain standrad in public life.

[Brazen]

We had some cases in the late 90s or early 2000s where Caroline of Monaco sued German papers for breach of privacy because they published pictures of her and her children in some secluded garden with a high wall around it. The German courts wanted to allow that, but they were struck down by the ECHR. Since then, celebrities have a guaranteed right to privacy in their private premises, meaning you can't just take pictures of them and publish them.

So while the tabloid would not be an accessory to blackmail here, it would still be liable for civil charges for damages by the politician in question for publishing the video.

Here is the Wiki with a link to the ECHR decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Hannover_v_Germany

This is clear invasion of privacy. In the politician's case, he is being openly filmed by people he invited in, so it doesn't apply.

[Martinus]

It falls under "public interest" as even a politician who is not a strong advocate of family values is expected to uphold a certain standrad in public life.

But it's hardly "public life". The videos were made in the privacy of his home and were created illegally in the first place.

[KRonn]

Lol... Everyone involved in this sordid episode should be sent to Gitmo.  Newspaper people involved, the "victim" and those doing the tapes/blackmailing.     

There is more and more space available in Gitmo now. And besides, some of these folks will wind up in Illinois or something anyway.     

[Iormlund]

We had some cases in the late 90s or early 2000s where Caroline of Monaco sued German papers for breach of privacy because they published pictures of her and her children in some secluded garden with a high wall around it. The German courts wanted to allow that, but they were struck down by the ECHR. Since then, celebrities have a guaranteed right to privacy in their private premises, meaning you can't just take pictures of them and publish them.

So while the tabloid would not be an accessory to blackmail here, it would still be liable for civil charges for damages by the politician in question for publishing the video.

Here is the Wiki with a link to the ECHR decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Hannover_v_Germany

This is clear invasion of privacy. In the politician's case, he is being openly filmed by people he invited in, so it doesn't apply.

Yes, but he was clearly incapacitated, and he didn't give his consent to distribute. I'd send them all to jail, to be honest. Unless there is a clear connection to public interests privacy should not be breached.


Also, is any possession of coke illegal in Poland Marti? Or just with intent to distribute?

[DontSayBanana]

In America, they could be held as an accessory.  If any of the reporters or publishing staff are aware that the information's publication is being used as part of a crime, that employee is bound to report it to the authorities.  Doubly so if the publisher paid the blackmailer as an informant- the US Constitution holds that you can't profit from your own crime.

[Martinus]

Also, is any possession of coke illegal in Poland Marti? Or just with intent to distribute?

I believe any possession is illegal, though obviously the severity of the offense depends on stuff like that.

[Iormlund]

What about weed? Speed? Ecstasy?