A closer look at privacy, privilege and libel

As we wrap up our examination of law and ethical issues in journalism, I invite you to briefly take a look at three examples of situations that involve reporter's privilege, libel and the right to privacy.

One of the more well known cases involving reporter's privilege occurred several years ago when former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail. It's a rather complicated case, but this is a brief synopsis of it.

As you know, defamation involves either slander through the spoken word or libel through the printed word. But what about social media? Is it only professional journalists who have to worry about these things? Read this article to learn more.

Finally, it seems like technology often leads to less privacy. With the popularity of cell phones and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, do you think people are unconcerned with privacy? The Supreme Court is currently considering a case where technology and privacy are diametrically opposed. 

You can share your thoughts on any or all of these issues.


Flickr Creative Commons photo by Sean MacEntee

Lessons in the Right to Privacy

As Americans, we enjoy many rights, but 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 amendments in the Bill of Rights protect specific aspects of privacy. The 1st Amendment, for example, protects the privacy of beliefs (freedom of religion).

Defamation law recognizes differences between public and private figures. Unlike most people, who are considered private citizens, a politician or a celebrity is considered a public figure. So 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. Thus 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.

When it comes to proving fault in a libel claim, the law also treats private and public individuals somewhat differently. Both private and public individuals must prove a publication is at fault, but private individuals only need to prove negligence on the part of the reporter/publication, while public figures must prove actual malice. 

 

Earlier this year,in a remarkable case stemming from the right to privacy, the British tabloid News of the World actually closed for good after a shocking phone hacking scandal. Click here to learn more about it, and be sure to watch at least the first video, "Scandal shuts down British tabloid".

Finally, read this column about the difference between tabloid journalism and investigative journalism.

Creative Commons photo by Howard Lake