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

Re: Human Rights Act



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"?
Unfortunately, I agree with RS on this one. So far it's been a PR battle, with no statement from the authorities at all. I think Pete would be in serious trouble if folks hadn't spoken up for him in the media.


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.
This seems to be in compliance with the PCC code. However, my point it that the code has failed to cover the international issue. I'm hoping for some suggestions here as to what the code committee might do to prevent this happening to other targets in the future. International agreements? Imposing some liability for international damage on the UK media? Anything?


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 don't know that this is strictly true. If they published stories that were open to incorrect interpretation (or worse, implied something incorrect), then they started it and it's their fault. This might be difficult to argue in court, but it's still a moral wrong, especially when it leads to irrevocable damages.


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.
Actually, now that you mention it, there are a couple that Pete should nail with a defamation suit. That WENN wire service that propagated the story that he supports pedophilia, for example.


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.
By perpetrator, I gather you mean Pete and not some particular newspaper? There is no evidence as yet that Pete is really a sex offender who likes little kids. This is all built on the fact that his credit card number appeared on a list compiled by the FBI, and I could list several other possibilities as to why it appears there.


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.
If the house burns due to arson within the next few months, then it might be worth investigating a possible connection. I'm talking about identifying problems when we first see the possibility. Princess Diana's death was there to read in the cards for years before it actually happened. The 9/11 disaster was there in the cards to read. The law is required to wait for the smoking gun, but I think we have a moral obligation to look for these things before they happen and try to provide a remedy.


_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.
How can you say something like this is the perpetrator's fault? The word "perpetrator" is assuming guilt, for one thing. And for another, it's saying that vigilante justice beyond what a court orders is appropriate. This is unregulated, and can lead to hangings and similar murders for presumed offenses. Look at the history.

The threat against Pete is implicit in the way sex offenders are treated in the UK (and in the US, too). There was a mob waiting for Gary Glitter when he was released from prison, and the police had to take steps to get him out safely. If there had been no publicity about the case, how likely would it have been that the mob was waiting?


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.
And murder, too. How many famous sex offenders never manage to complete their sentence?


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.
I'm not talking about lawsuits at all here, but about changing the PCC code or other practices in the UK to prevent 1) international damage to someone's reputation that can't be remedied by actions within the UK and 2) to prevent possible danger to Pete, which can be predicted by similar cases.


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'll refer to the TV show again with the secret admirer. That wasn't a falsehood they publicized, but the jury found them directly responsible in a wrongful death suit because the presentation was inflammatory.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus