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?
Depends on how the newspaper came into possession of the pics.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 03:11:11 AM
Depends on how the newspaper came into possession of the pics.
They got it from the blackmailers.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 03:11:11 AM
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?
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.
I think, assuming the pictures were legally acquired, it's fair game. Though in Britain probably not anymore since the whole Max Mosley story.
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
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.
Quote from: Zanza on December 18, 2009, 04:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on December 18, 2009, 06:37:09 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brazen on December 18, 2009, 06:38:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 18, 2009, 04:13:27 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 18, 2009, 02:46:53 PM
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.
What about weed? Speed? Ecstasy?
Quote from: Iormlund on December 18, 2009, 03:16:12 PM
What about weed? Speed? Ecstasy?
I haven't really been following legislation changes on this, since I never used drugs, but I think right now possession of everything is criminalized. I think possession of weed for personal use used to be not illegal, but they changed it when PiS was in power.
Isn't that a bit impractical? Our prisons would be crowded if that were the case. Not to mention the judicial system.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 18, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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.
Where the hell did you come up with that? There's no such prohibition in the Constitution (though there are statutory laws to that affect) and AFAIK, in most jurisdictions the only people with a legal obligation to report crimes to the authorities are those that are considered officers of the court. And even if what you posted was accurate, that wouldn't prevent the them from reporting the blackmail to the police, and still publishing the pics.
Also, what kind of idiot blackmailers say we have this video of the PM with a carrot up his ass, we tried to blackmail him but he wouldn't pay so you can have it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 05:18:30 PM
Also, what kind of idiot blackmailers say we have this video of the PM with a carrot up his ass, we tried to blackmail him but he wouldn't pay so you can have it.
Sounds to me like the kind of blackmailers that were made up by an embarrassed politician.
Sounds to me more like these are hos who were promised more than he delivered, and avenged themselves upon their john by embarrassing him. Bad professional ethics on their part, but they probably just
claimed to be hos on some internet forum and in reality were nothing of the sort.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 18, 2009, 03:30:27 PM
Isn't that a bit impractical? Our prisons would be crowded if that were the case. Not to mention the judicial system.
I think enforcement is rather patchy, plus people who just posses drugs usually get "suspended" sentences. I reckon it makes it easier to order an obligatory therapy/detox though.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 05:30:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 05:18:30 PM
Also, what kind of idiot blackmailers say we have this video of the PM with a carrot up his ass, we tried to blackmail him but he wouldn't pay so you can have it.
Sounds to me like the kind of blackmailers that were made up by an embarrassed politician.
Sounds to me more like these are hos who were promised more than he delivered, and avenged themselves upon their john by embarrassing him. Bad professional ethics on their part, but they probably just claimed to be hos on some internet forum and in reality were nothing of the sort.
He already paid them once - this time they went to the media because he didn't want to pay again.