On Oct 24, 7:21 am, "Alan" <alanb_lano2s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "A Michigan Attorney" <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6kjrh3lrvtdcrcfvpnuvdslics74264l8b@4ax.com...
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:53 am, Kathy Bennett Schoendorf
> > <kschoend...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> How is it legal to publish on TV the names and faces of people who have
> >> not
> >> been convicted of a crime in the "To Catch a Predator" TV shock show?
I don't know, but I'm sure the high priced lawyers employed by that network have given it a lot of thought, and have vetted everything that goes onto the show as "worth taking the risk" even if not "clearly 100% legal". TV networks are all about making money, after all. And if being "edgy" or even a little "over the edge" draws viewers and makes money, at the risk of a potential lawsuit, that's great, from their POV.
> > The First Amendment applies in this situation, so you have the issue
> > backwards. What you should ask is "why (or how) could it be illegal
> > to publish the names and faces of people who have been featured in 'To
> > Catch a Predator'?"
The 1st Am forbids prior governmental restraint of media content (i.e. censorship) but does not forbid government from enacting other laws (libel, indecency, invasion of privacy, etc.) that would allow a fine to be imposed, or a victim to sue, after the fact, if what was said or shown was not a "protected" expression within well settled 1st Am. jurisprudence.
You, Mr. Media Mogul, are free to publish whatever you want without screening your material past the government first. Is this a great country, or what? But if you step over a forbidden line and violate a law (such as the one under which the FCC fined the network for Janet J's halftime "wardrobe malfunction") or hurt somebody by doing so (such as in-your-face shock shows that actually have gotten people killed after victims were confronted live on camera with their "secret lover"), you can be made to pay the consequences afterwards.
> It seems to me that it is illegal for whatever was the same reason it was
> illegal for Candid Camera to air the people they photographed without their
> permission.
Candid Camera was purely an entertainment show placing nonprofessional actors in fake, absurd situations and recording their unscripted responses. The "actors" learned only after the fact that they were going to be "on Candid Camera" and of course, that would happen only if they gave permission by signing the network's model release (I'm not sure they got paid for it, but am guessing they did, although for some people, just "being on TV" would be payment enough). In that respect, Mr. Funt's pioneering show was a lot like one genre of so called "reality" shows today such as Survivor and its progeny, which in point of fact have nothing to do with "reality" but are likewise simply cheap, easy-to-produce entertainment shows using nonprofessional actors giving unscripted responses to absurd, fake situations.
Current industry terminology, however, also lumps in as "reality" shows those "video voyeur" gotta-look-at-the-bloody-wreck recorded events that are, in fact, REAL events, involving nonprofessional actors in unscripted situations -- unscripted because they are really happening, with real consequences.
The various cop chase shows, newsmagazine shows, etc. would IMO claim they don't need, or get, model releases from the subjects of their focus, on the alleged ground that the events being shown are both "true" (or at least, "not recklessly untrue") and "newsworthy", which the network will claim fits them into an exception to the libel and invasion-of-privacy laws.
Even though the TV suits may have made a deal with the cops to "ride along" on an official "sting" operation, or maybe the TV guys cooked up the whole thing with no cop involvement (I never watched one of those catch-a-predator shows, so don't know which it is) they are likely to argue, if sued by one of the alleged perps they highlight, that what they do is no different than having the camera van waiting at the courthouse steps to catch a "perp walk" for broadcast. Although OP mentions "not [yet] convicted of a crime" as part of her question, as though that may make some difference, being convicted is not the critical break point for newsworthiness. The foax shown doing the "perp walk" in front of the courthouse haven't been convicted yet either, merely accused, of whatever infamous act makes their faces sell papers, or boost ratings. What makes this subject matter (from the POV of the network) safe enough to broadcast (even if not assuredly 100% "legal") is that it is newsworthy and not recklessly false,
Now, if one of these guys who got caught in the camera lights decided to sue, the most likely claims he would make would be for defamation (which has been frequently discussed here on this forum so I won't try to re-define it) or a so-called "false light invasion of privacy" claim, which covers certain acts that fall short of constituting defamation (maybe because the content is literally true) but which take things that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation to keep private, and made them public, in a way that cast a false light on plaintiff's motives, character, etc.
I don't know if OP was looking for a definitive answer, or just wanted to stimulate a lively discussion, but in either event, the answer, as usual, is "it depends".
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment