[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Human Rights Act



Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:14:13 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>

This looks to be the applicable article under the European Human Rights Act.
  If Pete is never charged by the police, but adjudicated by the media and
sentenced
I'm not a lawyer so you can disregard this if you like but to answer your question below, no, you don't have a case. The first reason is just above...the media can't adjudicate or sentence people. By definition those actions are reserved to the judiciary.

to stalking and/or violence from vigilante anti-sex offender
fanatics, then it's a deprivation of his right to due process under this
law.
Again, the press doesn't provide due process, the courts do. I see what you're trying to argue here, but the courts are never going to issue an opinion implying that the press is a partner or co-operator of theirs in judging and sentencing possible wrongdoers. Broadly speaking, as long as the press don't publish falsehoods, they're immune from liability.

  The UK child porn law does allow legitimate reasons for possession of
photos, and if he's never charged, then it follows the police felt his
possession was for legitimate purposes.
Not at all. If he's never charged, all that proves is that they decided not to prosecute. That could be for a number of reasons other than that they're convinced his possession was for legitimate purposes.

Lawyers?  Have I got a case?  And who's at fault?  I'd say the UK press is
negligent--they should be aware of the dangers.
Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true"
   -- Howard Stern, 5/25/00