Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[grumbler]

You shouldn't hit the bottle so hard.

This is Tyr.  He talks like this cold sober, scary as that thought is.

[Sheilbh]

He said that what constitutes "responsible journalism" was from the common law (which it is) and I said that the same situation applies in the US, which it does.  This is not rocket science.
...
I was responding to what was written.  The term "responsible journalism" has, in fact, an everyday meaning.  Do the google search, and find http://www.google.com/search?q=%22responsible+journalism%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a None of the ones on the first page refer to any English common law.

I think I've caused confusion here.

I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.

So though we've not got a statute of journalistic ethics (as any look at the British press would confirm) we do have some ideas around that area that could soon be statute. Your speech is more protected if you can demonstrate that what you were doing was 'responsible journalism' and that sort of framework could be used in splitting the NYT from WikiLeaks.  Which was, I think, what Yi was point towards?

[grumbler]

I think I've caused confusion here.

I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.

So though we've not got a statute of journalistic ethics (as any look at the British press would confirm) we do have some ideas around that area that could soon be statute. Your speech is more protected if you can demonstrate that what you were doing was 'responsible journalism' and that sort of framework could be used in splitting the NYT from WikiLeaks.  Which was, I think, what Yi was point towards?

You are talking about the "Reynolds privilege" here, correct?

If so, the ten points listed as qualifying based on the story in The Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476714/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html appear to deal with cases of libel:

• The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed if the allegation is not true.

• The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is of public concern.

• The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind or are being paid for their stories.

• The steps taken to verify the information.

• The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation that commands respect.

• The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.

• Whether comment was sought from the claimant. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant will not always be necessary.

• Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.

• The tone of the article. A paper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.

• The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

There doesn't seem to be anything there that draws a line between Wikileaks and the NYT.

It seems, as an aside, to be dreadful law, if this is an accurate summary of it.  It draws no clear line that a journalist can examine to ensure that he/she is safe from libel.  It simply lists a bunch of considerations, most of which are common sense.  A journalist can believe he or she meets the criteria to qualify for privilege, but fail because a judge's evaluation of these vague criteria differs from the journalist's.

I find it also interesting that the nature of the newspaper allegations help determine whether or not a journalist is responsible, not just the nature of the journalist's action.  The law seems to encourage journalists to under-report allegations, because two otherwise identical stories can enjoy different status under the law if the "seriousness of the allegations" is less in one.

[crazy canuck]

English can be tricky. 

Yeah, when someone says same they can use all kinds of arguments to later claim they didnt actually mean same.

[crazy canuck]

I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.

There was no confusion.  I knew that was exactly what you were talking about.  I thought Grumbler did as well when he said "same here".  But it turns out he didnt know.  And of course Grumbler being Grumbler, rather than acknowledging that the concepts in the US and UK were different after being told of those differences the thread bogged down into semantics as Grumbler tried instead to justify the remark.

Par for the Languish course.

[grumbler]

There was no confusion.  I knew that was exactly what you were talking about.  I thought Grumbler did as well when he said "same here".  But it turns out he didnt know.  And of course Grumbler being Grumbler, rather than acknowledging that the concepts in the US and UK were different after being told of those differences the thread bogged down into semantics as Grumbler tried instead to justify the remark.

Par for the Languish course.

The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism."  As any quick google search will demonstrate, the term generates over 200,000 hits, and a scan of the first 40 hits only find it used in the common law defense sense in 2 of them.  In fact, if one searches the Reynolds decision itself one finds the term used once.  Googling "term of art" and "responsible journalism"
finds exactly one internet source arguing that "Responsible Journalism is a legal term of art," and that is your post above! 

Even the BBC uses the term in the common noun form here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/analysis/7487525.stm
The argument that the phrase must refer to some legal term of art is as preposterous as the claim that novels are factual.  Yet you cling to that claim, as you did to the other, because you are cRaZy CaNuCk and cannot admit error.

My original point stands, unobscured by your attempts to focus the discussion on dubious claims about "terms of art" and confused attempts to argue that capitalization doesn't matter:  in the US, the common law, and not statute law, defines the nature of the "responsible journalism" that is protected by the freedom of the press.

[crazy canuck]

The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism." 

Yes, I know you didnt realize the import of those particular words at first.  What baffles me is that you continued arguing like you did.

[The Brain]

The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism." 

Yes, I know you didnt realize the import of those particular words at first.  What baffles me is that you continued arguing like you did.

You are addressing a grumbler of the perversiverse.

[Razgovory]

It's seems a little strange that Grumbler is arguing as if he knows more about the law then lawyers.  I mean, we don't claim to know more about Rum, Buggery and the Lash then he does.

[The Brain]

It's seems a little strange that Grumbler is arguing as if he knows more about the law then lawyers.  I mean, we don't claim to know more about Rum, Buggery and the Lash then he does.

He teaches all three?

[grumbler]

You guys need  either grallon or Marti to make it a real dogpile.  What you have going here is pretty pathetic.   

[Razgovory]

You guys need  either grallon or Marti to make it a real dogpile.  What you have going here is pretty pathetic.   

Well it's no Line crossing ceremony orgy, but we do okay.

[grumbler]

Well it's no Line crossing ceremony orgy, but we do okay.

I do not want to hear about your "Line crossing ceremony orgy." 

[Razgovory]

I know what you sailors do.

[Barrister]

It's seems a little strange that Grumbler is arguing as if he knows more about the law then lawyers.  I mean, we don't claim to know more about Rum, Buggery and the Lash then he does.

What's more fascinating is that I happen to know CC had a recent case that touched on these very issues...