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

Re: Human Rights Act



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?
Nations tend to like to preserve their own sovereignty. I think you're spitting into the wind without some kind of international enforcement authority, and the UN doesn't give me much confidence in that working. trying to get a network of treaties going where a list of countries pledges to honor the lawsuits(?) of each others' citizens against each others' media seems too baroque to consider, too.
Defeatist.  ;)  Something needs to be done.  This is a mess.


I don't know that this is strictly true. If [British media] published stories that were open to incorrect interpretation (or worse, implied something incorrect), then they started it and it's their fault.
It's nearly impossible to print something that is not _somehow_ open to incorrect interpretation, (as this dialogue is proving).
Some things are more open to incorrect interpretation than others. The press went off half-cocked with a sensationalist story. If they'd done a little research they'd have come up with "A Different Bomb," which might have made a little difference in their presentation. But I dunno. Maybe not.

Anyhow, there's a report today that Matthew Kelly has been cleared by the police investigation. His arrest hit the papers about the same time as Pete's, and he lost his job over the press reports. We'll have to wait to see if he's reinstated, but I'd expect not. It's too much bad publicity. At least this wasn't an international issue, but it's just another illustration of how the tabloids work to ruin people and then run off after the next victim.


This might be difficult to argue in court, but it's still a moral wrong, especially when it leads to irrevocable damages.
If you want to tilt at something that's legal but immoral, get back to me when you take aim at the income tax.
I'll let you handle that one.  ;)


That's *no one's* fault but the perpetrator.
By perpetrator, I gather you mean Pete and not some particular newspaper?
Here's that misinterpretation we were discussing four paragraphs ago. By "perpetrator" I meant the person who commits the murder.
I thought that's what you meant after I sent off my email, but the way you used it makes the application unclear. After all, the KKK always thought their lynch victim was the perpetrator of some crime. Teena Brandon's killers thought she was a pervert who lied to them. Perpetrators of hate crimes often think they're righting some moral wrong and the other guy is the real perpetrator. There are a lot of folks out there who now think Pete is the perpetrator of some filthy crime against children. If the court fails to act, shouldn't he be punished for it? I mean, after all, they said on TV he was guilty. They would know the truth, right? :\


This is looking at things in reverse. ANYthing that actually happens can be seen to have traceable clues, in retrospect. But there are hundreds or thousands of everyday occurrences that COULD lead to some dire consequence but don't. Lets get back to "clear and present danger" rather than stifling a free press because one or two headcases might take things the wrong way.
What about asking the press to show a little responsibility? Should they publish formulas for making bombs? Until Timothy McVeigh this wasn't considered a problem. Should they tell the world where the US president is minute by minute immediately after a terrorist attack on Washington? Is there a clear and present danger in either of these?


safely. If there had been no publicity about the case, how likely would it have been that the mob was waiting?
I don't think I'd want to live in a society with the controls in place that it would take to NOT have had publicity about that. The fault lies in people with too much time and not enough brains, not in a free (and factual) press.
Maybe there's some fault in inflamatory stories? The way facts are presented can strongly influence public opinion. Gary Glitter is a long way from Jeffrey Dahmer. I just can't see any reason for a lynch mob to collect for somebody convicted of looking at pictures.


OK. But I think 1) faces a morass of crosscurrents as before, and 2) would impose more harm than it would solve, cf. "Prior restraint".
An alternative, as you say, is for the victims to bring suit for defamation. Or, as Schwarzenegger did, criminal charges--this was a surprise, and likely had more affect than any number of civil suits.

The media wants to have free rein, and then expects to avoid any penalty because of "freedom of speech." Hey, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Sometimes you get punched in the nose for your free speech. That's the breaks.


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.
And even that was preferable to having the government terminate the Jenny Jones show long before the show in question occurred, because it _might_ lead to a crime.
Regulation wouldn't have had to terminate the show--only set limits. Letting the trend develop to it's natural conclusion cost someone's life. It's only when self-regulation fails that the governement, or the courts, have to step in.


keets

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