{"id":1468,"date":"2019-07-31T13:43:36","date_gmt":"2019-07-31T13:43:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/?page_id=1468"},"modified":"2025-01-18T03:50:58","modified_gmt":"2025-01-18T03:50:58","slug":"media-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/media-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Media Law"},"content":{"rendered":"
Note: the following basic outline of media law is taken from a broader perspective available online here.\u00a0<\/a> (www.revolutionsincommunication.com\/law)\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/h6>\n

———<\/p>\n

1. Freedom of speech and press <\/strong>are fundamental\u00a0foundations of civilization.<\/span><\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/a>In the United States of America,<\/strong> the cornerstone of speech and press law is the First Amendment of the Constitution. \u00a0It has six major clauses; two concerning religion, and one each in the areas of speech, press, assembly and petition:<\/p>\n

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Many other democracies are also committed to free speech and press, and have their own foundational human rights documents and guarantees.<\/p>\n

The most significant international document<\/strong> is the\u00a0United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.<\/a>\u00a0Article 19:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

II. Why we need to appreciate media law\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Everyone is a publisher. \u00a0<\/strong>Everyone who uses the media needs to understand media law because \u00a0new technologies make it possible for individuals to reach very large audiences. \u00a0Totalitarian regimes (Saudi Arabia, China, others) and political extremists (such as the \u2018alt-right\u2019) claim that democracy does not work, and that dissent must be punished for the sake of order and social stability.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The democracies of the world utterly reject that idea. People in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, most of \u00a0Latin America and Africa believe that respect for law and human rights helps to stabilize social systems. \u00a0As a practical matter, it is easier to balance rights than to suppress them. \u00a0 More importantly, there is something deep in the human spirit that needs freedom. \u00a0This is the basis of natural rights theory.<\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Natural rights theory<\/a>,<\/strong>\u00a0developed during the Enlightenment era of the 1700s, takes the view that freedom\u00a0<\/span>is the natural human condition. Rights under this concept are not\u00a0given\u00a0<\/em>(or endowed) by the state; instead they are\u00a0\u00a0given \u00a0by nature or by God. A\u00a0 state or nation exists to protect rights; it does not, and cannot, \u201cgrant\u201d rights. That\u2019s why the US Declaration of Independence says:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator<\/strong>\u00a0with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This view developed in Western Europe during the Enlightenment period, but of course,\u00a0 Western Europe is not the only source of the idea of freedom of religion, speech or expression, or of democracy. In fact, the historic and global diversity of\u00a0 appreciation for human rights emphatically re-affirms the natural rights perspective.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Free speech has a pragmatic function. and dissent can lead to constructive social change and improvements in the human condition.\u00a0 It serves as a \u201csocial safety valve.\u201d Repression, on the other hand, alienates the people, making non-violent reform impossible and greatly increasing resentment and the likelihood of violence.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Political opinions should never\u00a0be censored, according to political philosopher John Stuart Mill in his book\u00a0On Liberty<\/a>, because it deprives the people:\u00a0 \u00a0If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ben Eaton, Mary Schaeffer, Esther Calhoun, and Ellis Long (from left to right) successfully asked courts to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought against them for speaking out about pollution in their Alabama town.\u00a0 The dismissal was expected, since everyone has a right to express their concerns about public issues even if they involve private companies. (Photo courtesy ACLU)<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2022\u00a0 Criticism of government and public officials\u00a0 is a civic duty.\u00a0<\/strong> To speak out about\u00a0 public people and public issues, even to the point of sharp and vehement debate, is often seen as a citizen\u2019s responsibility as well as a right. \u00a0This idea was strongly endorsed in bedrock free speech case New York Times v Sullivan, but is a longstanding commitment in American discourse.<\/p>\n

As US President Theodore Roosevelt once said:\u00a0 \u201cTo announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic\u00a0 and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

III.\u00a0 Libel and privacy<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Libel is an untrue statement<\/strong> about a living person or existing institution that injures reputation by defamation, that is, by exposing them to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule.\u00a0 (Slander is spoken defamation.)<\/p>\n

Libel suits are civil<\/strong> (not criminal) in most of the world.<\/p>\n

Public and private people:<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0In the US and most other free countries, the law distinguishes between libel of public people and private people.\u00a0 A public person (like a football coach) can be criticized without much fear of a libel suit in the US unless the criticism is knowingly false or in reckless disregard for the truth.\u00a0 On the other hand, a falsehood about a private person can result in a libel suit if the defendant has simply been negligent.<\/p>\n

Defenses against libel<\/strong> are: 1) Truth, 2) Fair comment & criticism, and 3) Privilege, that is, citing from “privileged” (official) documents such as court records.<\/p>\n

Private people can successfully sue\u00a0<\/strong> for “publication of private facts,” even if the facts are true, provided they are outrageous to an average person (such as showing a sex video, or disclosing a person’s health condition) and not ordinary (such as being a regular dog-walker).<\/p>\n

False light<\/strong> —\u00a0 Another type of privacy suit involves situations where\u00a0 a photo or a video clip is edited or captioned in a way that leads to a totally false conclusion. \u00a0Although the photo or video clip may be truthful in the sense that it depicts one slice of reality, there are times when the context can be deceptive.\u00a0 The Sherrod v Brietbart c<\/a>ase is a good example of how deceptive editing can lead to false light charges.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mitigation: <\/strong>If you make a mistake, be ethical and admit it. A retraction and\/or correction can mitigate (reduce) court imposed fines.<\/p>\n

Go beyond the overview.\u00a0<\/strong> The above is just a quick overview to alert you to some of the possible issues.\u00a0 There’s more about libel and privacy, and about cases and hypotheticals, on this web site.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Note: the following basic outline of media law is taken from a broader perspective available online here.\u00a0 (www.revolutionsincommunication.com\/law)\u00a0\u00a0 ——— 1. Freedom of speech and press are fundamental\u00a0foundations of civilization. In the United States of America, the cornerstone of speech and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1468","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1468"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1468\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3929,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1468\/revisions\/3929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/viscomm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}