Re: Human Rights Act

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.
Then why did Rolling Stone put up their headline?  "Townshend: Trial by 
Tabloid!"  ;)

In some cases I wouldn't be so concerned about the effects of everyone 
considering Pete is guilty of some crime.  If this were insider trading, for 
example, then it's not a big deal.  But, this is a sex offense (whereas, 
BTW, sleeping with 17-year-olds isn't, somehow).  It's traditional to name 
sex offenders as part of the punishment.  In the US and UK, sex offenders 
have to register so the public can keep track of their addresses.  
Officially this is so parents can research the info or be notified and have 
the ability to protect their children.  Unofficially, the practice also 
suggests that vigilante groups should watch and persecute these people so 
they are reminded not to commit any further sex crimes.  I gather this 
strategy is considered necessary because sex crimes are so hard to stop.

Whatever, Pete has now been represented as a pedophile very widely in the 
media.  It's true that the UK papers have carefully published only the truth 
and allowed equal time for Pete's statements.  However, the implications 
within their coverage led to incorrect reporting in the world press, and 
other countries don't have the same code that requires equal time for 
redress.  Thus, many readers/TV watchers are left with a strong impression 
that Pete is a sex offender that likes little kids.

This is dangerous.  I hate to mention such things (knock on wood), lest 
saying it could somehow make it come true, but Pete could be murdered for 
this tomorrow.  The media published Pete's photo widely and gave enough 
information that his house would be easy to locate.  You can see that Pete 
took this threat seriously, as he hired a security company immediately to 
protect his home and family.  This threat to personal safety is serious 
damages, and here's where I think the Human Rights violation comes in.  
Because of the violence directed at known or suspected pedophiles, I think 
the media is liable for endangerment.


> 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.
I'm not sure about that.  If their actions lead to damages, then I'd think 
they are liable, regardless.  An example that comes to mind is that TV show 
(Jenny something?) that brought out the guy's secret admirer who turned out 
to be another guy.  After the murder, the show was held responsible because 
public embarrassment was considered to be key.  I think this is still being 
fought in the courts, and I've kind of lost track of progress, but at least 
the initial decision held the show liable, regardless of whether they 
presented the truth.


> 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.
It's not really proof I'm getting at.  It's going to be tough to prove 
anything in this case, as intent is very important in the "defences" listed 
for the law.  In the way that saying Pete subscribed to a porn website 
implies he's a pedophile, lack of official charges after an investigation 
will imply innocence of a crime.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail