We are now on day four of the “Nothing to see here folks” story of the internal directives at APN telling staff and contributers who they should and should not be writing about and we are still talking about it.
So far it has been covered by the following online souces;
The NBR here.
The Pinko MP’s at Red Alert here.
An absent David Farrar who likes playing Shoot ‘em up games in Cairo airport here.
Pinko Dimpost here and here.
Professional writer Bill Bennett here.
Christian networked blog M&M’s here.
Former Journo Home Paddock here.
Former Journo Roar Prawn’s here.
Inquiring Mind here.
Us here.
Even Russell Brown little band of felchers and sycophants have talked about it.
Today Cactus Kate though throughly demolishes the Herald and other Lame Stream Media. She throws the aforementioned Guidelines document that is the root of the Herald’s Corporal Jones Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic post the other day right back in their face. What does Tim (nice but dim) Murphy have to say now?
Surely it is only a matter of time before Radio and TV pick this up?
Popularity: 8% [?]
Back to Gotcha
medialaw, put your swinging dick down and gather some research skills to engage debate. That’s what all lawyers do regardless of their speciality.
The tort of invasion of privacy in NZ is actually a well-developing one. In the Law Commission Issue Paper 14, March 2009 you will find discussion in relation to the tort of invasion of privacy and the deceased.
At 6.94 there is a clear indication that the question of privacy attaching to the deceased remains “unanswered”.
At 6.95 “As far as the deceased persons are concerned it is an open question whether their next of kin could bring a privacy action, and if so whether it would be their own action, or an action of behalf of the deceased’s estate.
So rather than rule it out completely the paper then at 6.109 lists in “unanswered questions”
“Can actions be brought by living relatives of the decased to protect the privacy of a deceased person?”
So while you dismiss it completely, I note the judicious use by the Privacy commission of the word “may” in “may not”, she hasn’t ruled it out completely either..
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6489936/family-ca...
I suggest that the answer is, it is possible but looks expensive to argue in Court but if you had the money it would make a nice test case of how far privacy has developed.
And again as I stated forgetting court, the developments in this area of law and the blatant usage of images of a Granny that breach even the industry’s own internal guidelines make a settlement meeting all the more delicious.
Pick what up?
That APN document was about defamation, privacy law and contempt of court. Myra Letts is dead. Accordingly there are no grounds for any of those causes of action. Personally, I wouldn’t hire a tax lawyer to advise me on media law. But whatevs.
Excuse me — to clarify — on the basis that Myra Letts is dead, and the alleged breach occured after her death, there are no grounds for privacy or defamation. Contempt of court does not apply.
My website says professional writer because that’s where my money comes from these days, but in truth I’m a journalist with more than 30 years experience.
Not a whinge, just a minor clarification or even a point of order m’lud.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Whaleoil. Whaleoil said: Published a new blog post: Day Four — The Lawyer demolishes the Repeaters http://bit.ly/tYViT […]
Medialaw
Where did I say that the action was for defamation? Or contempt of court? Of course — Nowhere. The guidelines are for pre-publication vetting.
With regards the photo — ergh…so it’s ok to publish to picture of a dead body? No general action for privacy?
I actually conceded in the post the action would likely fail in Court. Most actions never get to Court they are settled. Which is why you need as much evidence to take to the settlement meeting.
Get your facts straight before you become the butt of legal action. You have your facts wrong. There is no story. I’d take it all down and quick!!!
“Christian networked blog M&M’s”?
That would be, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology, Jurisprudence and Social Commentary blog MandM?
Medialaw what about the ethics of running with the picture? Not everything for which there is not law prohibiting it is immediately a wise or sensible or ethical thing to do.
Farah, do explain?
This latest post merely rebuts the presumption raised by various commenters on my blog and elsewhere dismissing these APN journalism guidelines as “101” when MSM regularly does not follow them. I then gave an example and used the APN Guidelines to prove that MSM had breached these apparent “101” guidelines. Quite recklessly with the current case of Mrs Letts.
I did not name any media outlet who had specifically breached them in relation to Mrs Letts’ story, including APN publications. While I saw the photos on various websites, the MSM outlets have all taken them off their websites so the evidence of their breaches has disappeared. There has been even dumping and removal from caches in some instances.https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals?...
The only link was to the Manawatu Standard of Mrs Letts’ birthday celebrations when she was very much alive and kicking, and the other media named was Close Up that had an analysis of it last night with the son of a resthome resident, Age Concern and the whistleblowers.
It sounds like you are a visionary legal thinker stuck in yesterday. Aren’t media lawyers just dinks who got B and C grades who want to hang around celebrities all day? Kind of like one rung above immigration lawyers? Legal thinking is about where you can develop the future, the way of the future according to the Law Commission appears that privacy will apply to the dead as well as the living.
Myra Letts was alive when the photo was taken.
Why are you talking about pictures of dead bodies?
itsatrap Myra Letts was alive at the time the photo was taken but dead by the time the alleged breach occurred.
CK you didn’t say the pre publication doc dealt with defamation, privacy, contempt of court. I did. I would be interested to hear what other causes of action you think are covered.
Privacy law is an evolving tort in NZ, and the issue of privacy of dead people is not yet decided by the Courts but looking at the tort in relevant jurisdications and judicial bodies (e.g. the BSA and the Privacy Commision), current thinking is that privacy rights will not attach to dead people.
Madeleine, I agree running the picture without consent of the person picture or her family is an ethical minefield. So, though, IMO, is charging vulnerable people legal fees to negotiate a pre Court settlement where they have no viable cause of action and any threat of Court action is completely hollow.
Isn’t the real issue here about whether the Herald is gagging reporters or not to cut potential legal costs?
Kate and her sources say “yes”; Tim says “no”.
I’d like to know who’s correct so if someone can substantiate Kate’s allegations further I’d like to see that.
Oh for God’s sake William, go back and read everything and make up your own mind. I have spent four days on it and now couldn’t care less if you are not convinced either way,
Careful with the friendly fire Kate. My mind is made up and I’m on your side. I was simply suggesting people stop running spurious arguments here and just contribute facts — if they have them.
You are a sook then. How would law develop without cases being tested in Court? You have just admitted Privacy Law is evolving. When law is evolving it is only going to be tested by taking it to court. Or the law specifically being altered to include for circumstances like this when there is outrage when people have been clearly wronged.
For someone who is holding out to be a lawyer, you are not very litigious? Have you ever been to Court or do you just write about what happens when other people go there? In other words, are you a sooky academic?