Libel and Invasion of Privacy Essay

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

There are also times when information is released to the public, which could be potentially harmful to our national security. Ultimately Freedom of the Press is an essential right. For the press, they feel the need to inform people of situations that arise, such as health care issues (probably to raise their revenue but also because if they were part of the general public, they would want to be informed). The government may not be ready to tell it's people that there is a potentially life threatening disease in populated areas, in fear that it might cause a panic. The press on the other hand, will supply its readers with the information.

The common law jurisdiction in the UK did not hold the rights of an individual 's privacy highly against the public interest of free expression. UK had a tragic lesson learnt with the death of Princess Diana from chasing paparazzi and in 1998 the United Kingdom passed its Human Rights Act which included a right to privacy. Yet many Judges decisions still use the words of breach of confidence.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 protects journalists from being required to turn over to law enforcement any work product and documentary materials, including sources before it is disseminated to the public. Journalists who most need the protection of

When the first 10 amendments of the constitution were written, one of the main concerns was government intrusion. In the 1800s, citizens were concern about the confidentiality of their correspondence. Likewise in 1890, the concern was photography and yellow journalism. With lack of privacy laws, citizens brought several cases to the U.S courts because they felt there were violations of privacy. As a consequent, several torts were written and recognize by most states. This torts included the intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light or publicity, and appropriation. Though, historical events have help to expand the definition of privacy, there has not been a critical event that forced America to have a comprehensive federal policy about protecting the right to privacy. Nevertheless, every time that there is a major concern that threatens the right to privacy, the government and the states have passed laws to eliminate those

28. Slander -The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

When they give us lockers at school we take them as our only private place in school, so when they search us are they invading our privacy? Anywhere you go whether you’re here or in china the opinions will always be different and some will be for it and some will be against it no matter what. Everyone always thinks that they are the ones with the right way of thinking but becasue they think that they automatically think the other side is wrong no matter what they say or think.

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

I believe that the statement A.J. Leibling made is both true and accurate. The function of the press is indeed to report true and unbiased events to the mass public, however, the media is a business; people are in the business to make money, therefore, they are going to release the stories that will receive the highest ratings. Unfortunately, the stories that receive the highest ratings are often the negative ones. Nobody would like to admit it, but society as a whole is more interested in the malicious stories than the heartwarming ones. So obviously, the media outlets will cover the stories that make the most money, because as I mentioned earlier, they are still a business. My opinion is that this is reason for why today's media reports

First of all, it is important to know the definition of privacy, it is the right to control who knows what about you, and under what conditions. The right to share different things with the people that you want and the right to know that your personal email, medical records and bank details are safe and secure. Privacy is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies. If someone has committed a physical intrusion, or, in discussing the principal question, has published embarrassing or inaccurate personal material or photographs of the individual taken without consent, he is invading their right of privacy, which is in the article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

By definition defamation is the act of injuring someone’s character or reputation by false statements. Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. The person’s name is considered not only personal but proprietary right of reputation. Defamation is synonymous with the words libel and slander in terms of law. Defamation is a term that encompasses both libel and slander. Libel is a term used to describe visual defamation; as in newspaper articles or misleading pictures. Slander describes defamation that you can hear, not see. It is mostly oral statements that tarnish someone’s reputation.

This is where the media tend to clash with people. Some journalist may argue and say that when publishing privet information it is in the public interest but they must prove that. This is in reference section4 which states, “The defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest." This is under the public interest defence, which was created under the defamation act 2013. The law was set up to allow journalists the right to free speech in reference to Article 10 stating “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”

My next question is does the information media have social responsibility? Some may say no they don’t have social responsibility. As for many of us we tend to believe they do have social responsibility. They are responsible for what they are publishing. Let’s look at an example of this. Let’s say I was to go downtown and make up a story. I then make a big scene to gather as many people as I can. Then as the people are listening and watching I precede to tell them the local county officials are spending the tax payer’s money on alcohol and private parties for themselves. At this point I honestly don’t know if they do but I heard it from a friend of mine. So, by hearing that I assume its true since that person is my friend. Well in this case its not true but I end up getting arrested for defaming the officials. Now look at the media. They can publish an article making claims that the presidential campaign is doing illegal activity. Do they get arrested for making false claims? The answer is no. Why is that? That’s not very fair if you think about it.

Thousands of our nation's men and women were fighting for their country, yet the media limited the amount of information that they chose to pass on to the public. Each day the media is faced with the choice of making decisions of what news to pass on, when that news could make a significant difference in someone's life, or in the fate of our nation.