naked people
Andy Wade
Law & Ethics of Journalism
Craig L. LaMay
February 8, 2005
Response #3: Naked People and the News
Why oh why do media outlets like this one have to do stupid things like this? It's just so STUPID. Ok. Rant over. As far as I can tell, the television station found the tape and jumped at the opportunity to broadcast pictures of girls changing in the locker room under the pretense that it was part of a “real news story.” I can hear the teaser now: “A local band director catches a thief on tape… but that's not all.” Ugh.
I think the major issue here is purpose. There was no reason for this to be on television.
My first instinct was to dismiss the case altogether, even though I'd give a harsh warning to this station for being blatantly offensive and stupid.
But after a look at the Private Facts Tort, I'd have to let the case go to trial. All of the criteria for Private Facts apply, and none of the defenses stand up. Check it out:
The information was highly offensive. High school girls changing in the bathroom stops just shy of soft-core porn. Irregardless of what was blurred out, it is the information that is offensive. And of course the information was not of legitimate public concern.
Meanwhile, all of the defenses fail to save the case. The information was not already public; the information was not newsworthy; and the girls did not give consent, implied or otherwise. On the compass-scale, this information is as bad as it can get: Not even close to newsworthy and highly offensive
So according to the Private Facts Tort, the case can go to trial.
I know we haven't covered the other torts yet, but I want to take a stab at them. I think for the most part they are fairly obvious. The girls were not shown in False Light - they were changing in the locker room and they were shown on television changing in the locker room. The video was offensive, yes, but not misleading. Other than the blurring of faces, the girls were shown just as the camera caught them.
Misappropriation is a tricky one, but I don't think it applies. Yes, someone “stole” them from a dumpster, but the station acquired the information legally.
Intrusion I think is going to be the most difficult tort to decide. The girls were in a public facility, but they also had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the girls' locker room.
I assume the television station's story was about
Let's see here.
Private facts
the information was clearly not newsworthy. The station could have and should have simply aired the portion of the tape where the band director stole the equipment. The airing of the girls undressing was simply stupid. I might just fine the station because they were so damn stupid. It must have been FOX.
Clearly the girls did not give their consent, and the information was not already public.
Intrusion
False Light
Misappropriation
Law & Ethics of Journalism
Craig L. LaMay
February 8, 2005
Response #3: Naked People and the News
Why oh why do media outlets like this one have to do stupid things like this? It's just so STUPID. Ok. Rant over. As far as I can tell, the television station found the tape and jumped at the opportunity to broadcast pictures of girls changing in the locker room under the pretense that it was part of a “real news story.” I can hear the teaser now: “A local band director catches a thief on tape… but that's not all.” Ugh.
I think the major issue here is purpose. There was no reason for this to be on television.
My first instinct was to dismiss the case altogether, even though I'd give a harsh warning to this station for being blatantly offensive and stupid.
But after a look at the Private Facts Tort, I'd have to let the case go to trial. All of the criteria for Private Facts apply, and none of the defenses stand up. Check it out:
The information was highly offensive. High school girls changing in the bathroom stops just shy of soft-core porn. Irregardless of what was blurred out, it is the information that is offensive. And of course the information was not of legitimate public concern.
Meanwhile, all of the defenses fail to save the case. The information was not already public; the information was not newsworthy; and the girls did not give consent, implied or otherwise. On the compass-scale, this information is as bad as it can get: Not even close to newsworthy and highly offensive
So according to the Private Facts Tort, the case can go to trial.
I know we haven't covered the other torts yet, but I want to take a stab at them. I think for the most part they are fairly obvious. The girls were not shown in False Light - they were changing in the locker room and they were shown on television changing in the locker room. The video was offensive, yes, but not misleading. Other than the blurring of faces, the girls were shown just as the camera caught them.
Misappropriation is a tricky one, but I don't think it applies. Yes, someone “stole” them from a dumpster, but the station acquired the information legally.
Intrusion I think is going to be the most difficult tort to decide. The girls were in a public facility, but they also had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the girls' locker room.
I assume the television station's story was about
Let's see here.
Private facts
the information was clearly not newsworthy. The station could have and should have simply aired the portion of the tape where the band director stole the equipment. The airing of the girls undressing was simply stupid. I might just fine the station because they were so damn stupid. It must have been FOX.
Clearly the girls did not give their consent, and the information was not already public.
Intrusion
False Light
Misappropriation
posted by Andy at 11:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home