Libel: Last week, a Detroit News columnist wrote this disparaging piece about University of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez (otherwise known as "Rich Rod"). Could this be potentially libelous? Be prepared to offer in class at least two reasons why you think it is or isn't.
Right to Privacy: Despite what most people think, the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and some amendment in the Bill of Rights protect specific aspects of privacy. The 1st Amendment, for example, protects the privacy of beliefs while the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination provides protection for the privacy of personal information.
In general, the law attempts to balance the public's right to know vs. an individual's right to privacy. If the information is "newsworthy" -- that is, if people have a right or a need to know about something, then that will prevail over a person's claim to privacy. Thus, if your next-door neighbor is having an affair, publishing a story about it in the local paper would be a clear violation of his privacy. However, when a public figure does the same thing, the press can reasonably assert that such an event is newsworthy. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, waged a prolonged legal battle claiming that hundreds of text messages detailing his illicit affair with a co-worker were private. He lost and ended up going to jail for perjury and other charges.
But sometimes a private citizen injects himself or herself on to the public stage, and by doing so, loses the defense of "right to privacy". If that neighbor of yours is having an affair with a 16-year-old, that information is no longer considered private. That's news because it's against the law. Other times, however, it's not always so clear who is a "public figure" and so the courts have to interpret some invasion of privacy claims on an individual basis.
What's more, social networking sites and the Internet have created a myriad of new questions about a private citizen's right to privacy. And when, exactly, does a person's right to privacy end? When he or she dies? Not necessarily, according to the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit. Click here to learn about this interesting case.
Cell Phones: Finally, just in case you were thinking that you have no worries about privacy, check out this report about new cell phone spyware that not only tracks your every move but can also be used a means of harassment. Protect your privacy!
I would like to interject a point about the Foster column. I've met Terry Foster and like him. He's is (or at least was) an earnest journalist and a good human being. I am also a Michigan alumnus and I think RichRod has wrecked the football program. Having said that, I thought Terry's piece was brutal. He casually calls for Rodriguez to "Hit the Road, Jack" and mocks his manhood. His subject is a man who lives nearby with kids in school. The criticism is too personal for my tastes.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read a piece like this I wonder how the writer would respond if he were in the sights of a reporter from a national publication who tore him up in a similar way.
Regarding the article written about Rich Rod I think that because he is in some way a public figure that his right to privacy may not completely cover the untactful article written about him. Although, I did find what the columnist wrote very disrespectful and a bit too far. Attacking someone's personal attributes is very uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think that as a country we defiantly need some new laws regarding our rights of privacy on the internet. It is becoming a large problem nationally as well as locally. We should be able to post pictures on Facebook without having to worry about a pedophile copying them or saving them.
The article pertaining to Rich Rod,I would consider it to be "Ad Hominem" because it personally attacks him, however I don't think that the author could be successfully sued for libel because it is more of an opinion piece and is factually accurate. I would seriously question the publication of this article, though, because I thought that it was a very unnecessarily rude and personal attack on Rich Rod.
ReplyDeleteThe other articles were also alarming, and I thought that they brought to light the necessity of the creation of laws that could prevent these horrible things from happening.
I do not think the article on Rich Rod could be considered libelous because, as Mary Kate said, it is clearly marked as an opinion piece and if factually correct. The purpose of the article is to attack Rodriguez's character and prove that he is not fit to be a Michigan coach; the purpose is not to attack or argue a certain policy or opinion of Rodriguez's. Therefore, because the intent of the piece was to personally attack him, I would not consider the article to be "Ad Hominem."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Mr. Foster was completely out of line in his attacks of Rich Rod's character. He personally attacked him and the things he wrote could cause Rodriguez to lose his job and cause other people to think of him differently. On the other hand, Foster's defense is that it was his opinions. So I can see both sides of the argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was horrible how the pictures of Nikki were allowed to be published on the Internet just because she is dead. Those pictures are private and should be the property of the family. I was also disgusted how people would send these gruesome pictures to her family.
It was scary to see how people can bug anyone’s cell phone and read their text messages, hear their conversations, and know their exact locations. Laws about right to privacy need to be enforced more strictly Laws about right to privacy need to be enforced more strictly because this is clearly a violation of the right to privacy.
The article on Rodriguez was completely unprofessional. It barely touched on what he'd done and focused solely on attacking his personality and ethics which are not up for debate. But since it was an opinion, it wouldn't be illegal, just incredibly rude and unnecessary. Just like the pictures of Nikki, they're things the public doesn't need to see or hear, but someone thought they could make money off of it so it was published. I think these journalists could have done a better job of being ethical with their reporting.
ReplyDeleteThe Rich Rod column was not libel, however it went to far. It was factually correct and because Rich Rod is a public figure, this was newsworthy. That being said, his editor should not have approved this article. Its very personal and wether you like Rodriguez or not, anyone would have to admit that the article crossed a line. The newspaper should have had more dignity than to allow that to be run, even as an editorial. The paper is really degrading itself by deeming that acceptable to run in it's papers. If the writer wanted to criticize Rich Rod's coaching that would be one thing, however this just takes too many personal digs, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Terry Foster's article, it's hard to distinguish whether Rich Rodriguez had a right to privacy or whether his status as a public figure made this criticism acceptable. Although what Foster said was very insulting and rude to Rodriguez, he put himself in the spotlight which gives reporters the right to write about it. However, should they publish this work? There is a line when it comes to right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first video, I think it is just wrong how someone abused this girls' right to privacy. It is hurting the family and damages the girl's reputation even though she is dead.
The video about the cellphones just astonished me. It definitely scares me to know that someone is able to access your phone and listen in to your calls. I think right of privacy definitely needs to be enforced.
I think that the article about Rich Rod could be libel but it would be a tough case. Since Rich Rod is a public figure, a case could be made that it is not libel. On the other hand, Mr. Foster was very harsh. His article was very insulting and I think that he took things too far.
ReplyDeleteThe video about cell phone spyware was very scary to me. I think right to privacy needs to be enforced, especially when it comes to technology.
In regards to the Gary Foster article I think his role as public figure exempts him from making a right to privacy claim. But I think he couldn't make a libel claim considering the piece is more of an opnionion piece but I think it was highly uncalled for and unprofessional to attack someone like that.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the privacy after death I think it should considering the information that was streamed is not really "newsworthy" and it was exceedingly gruesome and private.
The ability to hack someones cell phone like that surprised and scared me. I suppose not everything we ways is private
I think there are definitely two sides to this discussion. On one hand, the article on Rich Rod was very cruel and personally attacked the man's character. Seeing an article like that about yourself cannot be easy. However, in taking that job he agreed to be under the public's scrutiny. Especially as a man at the head of a football program, something most people feel very passionate about, he should be prepared to hear attacks like that, even if they are cruel or unfair.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Rich Rod article has a strong case for liable. People's rights have to reach somewhere and this article was out of line. This is attacking his personal character and not just about his job.
ReplyDeleteThe privacy thing was very jarring and I think that maybe privacy rights should extend through death. The poor girl's family is suffering when they should be mourning.
Rich Rod is a public figure and the record of success or failure of his football team has been made public. Michigan football games are viewed by many both in person and on television. Commenting critically about his failure or success with the team is not libelous. The statements about the teams poor record are not untrue. He is a public figure and if his reputation is injured, it has been injured by the very public failure of his team under his leadership, not by this man's critique of the team's poor performance.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the right to privacy after death, I believe that girl is a private citizen and has a right to privacy even after death. She had a right to having her privacy protected by the police officers on the scene. Not only was her privacy violated, but her family's was as well.
Hacking someone's phone is a complete violation of privacy. A person's private phone calls and location are no one else's business.
I think the Rich Rod's banquet story is libel, not only to the Michigan football coach, but to the people that he offended by making fun of the coach. Such as the former Michigan State coaches, and the Lions coaches.I was also really creeped out by the cell phone video. I had no idea that it was possible for normal people to tap into your conversations, not only while your in a phone call, but also while you're talking with you're phone by you! Scary!
ReplyDeleteThis article is not libel because he just critisizing him, the things could be true about what he said.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very mean coloumn though, and is disrespectful.