Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[DontSayBanana]

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?  Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Did you read Brazen's post?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?  Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

Because reporting on individuals serves no public interest other than schadenfreude.  An institution should be transparent and be able to be reported on without reprisal because their affairs are matters of public interest.  The biggest problem is that no government I know of has made the distinction between the two concepts yet.

Reporting on private individuals should be restrained.  Murdoch's legal troubles right now are a matter of public interest since his disappearance could and probably would send an enormous mesh of companies into a downward spiral; victims of crime shouldn't be bothered when the only tangible end to the investigation is the exposure of the subject to fresh psychological trauma.

[Razgovory]

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?  Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Did you read Brazen's post?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?  Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want.  It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation.  A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft.  Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.

[Martinus]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

[crazy canuck]

Reporting on private individuals should be restrained.

Just think about your position for a moment.  Are you saying that the press should only report on government actors?  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not mean to include private corporations (who are individuals under the law) as people who should be protected by such a ban.  But even then do you really think that a private individual should have a bubble protecting them from the prying eyes of reporters.  What if the person carries on business not as a private company but as sole proprietor and engages in all kinds of nasty business that would be in the pubic interest to report - I dont think you would support a ban on such reporting.

[crazy canuck]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

Exactly the situation I wish to avoid.

[crazy canuck]

Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want.  It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation.  A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft.  Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.

That is the red herring Grumbler started us off on.  As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.  Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.

[Razgovory]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

Yes, but many European jurisdictions don't have freedom of the press.

[Razgovory]

Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want.  It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation.  A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft.  Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.

That is the red herring Grumbler started us off on.  As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.  Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.

Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear".  These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.

[crazy canuck]

Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear".  These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.

I think you just answered your own question.

[Razgovory]

Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear".  These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.

I think you just answered your own question.

Okay, so reiterate your argument.  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I still don't understand your postion.

[grumbler]

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?

Nothing to do with it?  Of course not!  What kind of silly question is that! 

Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Doesn't your strawman make blah blah freedom ring hollow?   No.  It is just a silly strawman.  No one but you is even proposing such a thing.

What people propose is that reporters fear to break the law, just as anyone else does.  Sometimes they will decide to break the law anyway, as a matter of cost-benefit analysis, but this doesn't have anything to do with press freedoms (which are not freedoms to break laws in any country of which I am aware).  In this, reporters are no different than anyone else, and have to pay the price if they don't get away with it, just like everyone else.

Did you read Brazen's post?

Yes.  Did you?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?   

Who is arguing that privacy is "supreme right" over a free press?  Name some names, and let's see if they compromise "everybody."  I'll bet there isn't even a majority on Languish who think that there should be no free press.

Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

No.

[The Minsky Moment]

As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.

Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?

[Martinus]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

Exactly the situation I wish to avoid.

Don't see why. Conflicting interests need to be balanced out.

[Martinus]

As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.

Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?

Publishing medical records of people, for example.

[grumbler]

Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.

Is that a question, or a main point? 

If a question, the answer is almost certainly "not at all."  Reporters generally are not quivering in fear lest it be discovered that they, too, erased the phone messages of murder victims or bribed police to get tips on stories.  Those kinds of acts are way over the line, as is wiretapping, playing other peoples' private phone messages, and the like.  News people generally are not lawbreakers in any manner not shared with the population at large.  They don't need to be, to do their jobs.  The exception comes when reporters promise confidentiality to sources, when providing such confidentiality is against the law.  Then, reporters have to decide whether to reveal their sources or go to jail.  Their codes of professional ethics generally require them to go to jail.  I'm okay with that.