Re: Human Rights Act

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:38:08 +0000
> From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>
> > 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!"  ;)
Because they want to sell copies, they're misusing the language, and 
they're trying to shock their public (mildly) to sell copies.  How 
attention-grabbing would be the headline, "Townshend: Trial by the 
British Judiciary"?

> It's true that the UK papers have carefully published only the truth
> and allowed equal time for Pete's statements.
This sentence alone makes the case for the UK papers' lack of liability.

> 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.
That's not the British media's fault.  I suppose you could have him 
sue the media of foreign countries for their incorrect reporting 
(although I doubt he'd even have standing to do so), but it sounds 
like a big waste of his time.

> 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.
That's *no one's* fault but the perpetrator.

> The media published Pete's photo widely and gave enough
> information that his house would be easy to locate.
And that's supposed to be enough to make them liable for thousands? 
millions? of pounds. No.

> You can see that Pete
> took this threat seriously, as he hired a security company immediately to
> protect his home and family.
If Pete takes the possible, unsubstantiated (to my knowledge), 
amorphous threat of harm to himself and/or his family seriously, 
that's up to him.

> This threat to personal safety is serious damages,
_What_ threat?  There IS no threat in reality, just the possibility 
of one.  And even if someone DID threaten him, again that is the 
perpetrator's fault, not the media that did no more than publish 
facts.

> and here's where I think the Human Rights violation comes in.
And I think it doesn't.  Being "held guilty" is a judicial decision, 
not some extra expenses resulting from hiring bodyguards.  Reality is 
not a penalty, fines and prison are.

> Because of the violence directed at known or suspected pedophiles, I think
> the media is liable for endangerment.
As someone who frequently argues just to hear his own head rattle, I 
suspect you of doing the same with this. Taken seriously, your 
argument tries to remove responsibility for damage from individual 
nutcases who fling a rock through Pete's window and socialize it by 
blaming the media.  It also follows the current trend of immediately 
casting about for some deep pockets, no matter how remote to the 
matter at hand, to be forced to pay for any harm to any individual.

Perhaps the final contradiction of your position is that you want 
Pete to sue the media, USING THE COURT SYSTEM. If you feel the court 
system is so irrelevant that the *media* can impose penalties and 
sentences, why not engage other media (e.g., radio companies) to 
judge the tabloids, find them guilty, and impose and enforce 
penalties?

> 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.
All I can say is let us know how your argument in front of the judge goes.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true"
   -- Howard Stern, 5/25/00