Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Libel in Editorials
A question was brought up in a writing class I'm taking about whether or not opinion or editorial pieces that are published are libel for their comments considering it is an opinion piece. My answer to this question is that yes, the author is libel for all of his or her statements. There is a definitive line one cannot cross without proper facts to back up an accusation. For example, one is allowed to make remarks upon a persons character without "factual" data to back it up, other than that they met the person, or have known the person and they are giving their opinion about the person as a person. However when the author begins to make claims about another persons actions, the author then becomes libel for the statements he or she is making. One can state that, "I didn't like him.", but cannot state, "I didn't like him because he solicits prostitution." unless the speaker/writer has hard-evidence to prove he actually solicits prostitution. The fact that it is an opinion piece does not mean the rules of libel have changed or bent, it simply denotes to the reader that if they are to read the article they are to expect the authors opinions within the story unlike a typical straight hard-hitting, factual news-story.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Actual Malice
The 1960 case of Sullivan vs. The New York Times was a landmark for the people and especially the journalists of the United States. Long story short: an Alabama government official thought he was being attacked by a group of African American fundamentalists who wrote about a protest gone violent in Montgomery.
Sullivan, the Alabama official thought that the advertisement depicted inaccurate claims that insinuated Sullivan's involvement, however the ad never once mentioned Sullivan's name.
The court chief justice ruled in favor of Sullivan and granted him $500,000. The trial was later over-turned by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., his reasoning sparked the term "actual malice" that is now used so frequently in court rooms today.
Brennan concluded that the First Amendment must protect the publication of all written statements, even if they are false.
The only exception to this rule is unless these statements were made with actual malice, this means that the offending party has made these statements with full knowledge of their falsity or made in reckless disregard of their truth. Justice William Brennan Jr. "maintained that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedom of expression is to have the 'breathing space' it needs to survive.
The outcome of this event was extremely significant and opened up the air to whole new conversations within the media, and was beneficial in many ways the the journalistic community.
Sullivan, the Alabama official thought that the advertisement depicted inaccurate claims that insinuated Sullivan's involvement, however the ad never once mentioned Sullivan's name.
The court chief justice ruled in favor of Sullivan and granted him $500,000. The trial was later over-turned by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., his reasoning sparked the term "actual malice" that is now used so frequently in court rooms today.
Brennan concluded that the First Amendment must protect the publication of all written statements, even if they are false.
The only exception to this rule is unless these statements were made with actual malice, this means that the offending party has made these statements with full knowledge of their falsity or made in reckless disregard of their truth. Justice William Brennan Jr. "maintained that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedom of expression is to have the 'breathing space' it needs to survive.
The outcome of this event was extremely significant and opened up the air to whole new conversations within the media, and was beneficial in many ways the the journalistic community.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"Fla. pastor issues new demands" - USA Today
Fla. pastor issues new demands
The article published on September 10, 2010 about the Florida pastor named Terry Jones who had promised his followers that they would be burning Qurans on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 said that he would ultimately be canceling his book burning due to too much pressure from the White House. It is well known that over the past week or so there has been plenty of back and forth accusations of whether Mr.Jones' demands have been met (the issue of the mosque being built near the Sept. 11th memorial), either Jones has some serious issues with keeping his affairs in order or the other end is not taking him seriously, and I feel there's a good bet it's both. I think its clear from the actions of the people Mr.Jones is trying to deal with that they are not really taking him seriously. According to the forementioned USA Today article after canceling his event Jones said he wouldn't continue his burning of the Quran if he was able to meet Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the Islamic center and mosque building near Ground Zero. Rauf responded by saying that he had no intentions of meeting with Jones, but he is more than willing to see someone who is "seriously committed to pursuing peace." I found this very funny, it seems I'm not the only one who has stamped a "this guy's a joke" on Jones' forehead.
The article published on September 10, 2010 about the Florida pastor named Terry Jones who had promised his followers that they would be burning Qurans on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 said that he would ultimately be canceling his book burning due to too much pressure from the White House. It is well known that over the past week or so there has been plenty of back and forth accusations of whether Mr.Jones' demands have been met (the issue of the mosque being built near the Sept. 11th memorial), either Jones has some serious issues with keeping his affairs in order or the other end is not taking him seriously, and I feel there's a good bet it's both. I think its clear from the actions of the people Mr.Jones is trying to deal with that they are not really taking him seriously. According to the forementioned USA Today article after canceling his event Jones said he wouldn't continue his burning of the Quran if he was able to meet Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the Islamic center and mosque building near Ground Zero. Rauf responded by saying that he had no intentions of meeting with Jones, but he is more than willing to see someone who is "seriously committed to pursuing peace." I found this very funny, it seems I'm not the only one who has stamped a "this guy's a joke" on Jones' forehead.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Over 230 People Murdered, 400 Wounded
The New York Times - Somalia: Desperate Civilians Flee Fighting in Mogadishu
The article published in The New York Times September 7, 2010 described more than 230 people murdered by the Al Shabab, one of Africa's most aggressive and formidable militant Islamist groups. They control most of southern Somalia and have claimed affiliation with Al Qaeda since 2007. What I don't understand is why this article isn't at the top of this list for headliners. I am sure I can guess what some of the reasons are that it isn't though. One may be that it doesn't have to do with our country, another could be that people don't want to hear about 230 people and many of them civilians murdered. Some may say that it's old news, thousands of Somalians have died just in the past 12 years and no one wants to hear about it everyday, fair enough. However I believe the news shouldn't be censored or padded with flowery words to soften blows or to divert attention. The Fourth Estate has a mission to carry out, to inform the public without bias or prejudice about important news that will move and motivate readers to take positive action. But what denotes important? I believe genocide falls under the category of important, so why is this article hidden in a small dark corner of The New York Times?
The article published in The New York Times September 7, 2010 described more than 230 people murdered by the Al Shabab, one of Africa's most aggressive and formidable militant Islamist groups. They control most of southern Somalia and have claimed affiliation with Al Qaeda since 2007. What I don't understand is why this article isn't at the top of this list for headliners. I am sure I can guess what some of the reasons are that it isn't though. One may be that it doesn't have to do with our country, another could be that people don't want to hear about 230 people and many of them civilians murdered. Some may say that it's old news, thousands of Somalians have died just in the past 12 years and no one wants to hear about it everyday, fair enough. However I believe the news shouldn't be censored or padded with flowery words to soften blows or to divert attention. The Fourth Estate has a mission to carry out, to inform the public without bias or prejudice about important news that will move and motivate readers to take positive action. But what denotes important? I believe genocide falls under the category of important, so why is this article hidden in a small dark corner of The New York Times?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)