Slashdot Mirror
Where Are You Publishing?
AndrewRUK writes "A reporter for The Guardian is being prosecuted in Zimbabwe for a report that appeared on the newspaper's website, the newspaper writes in this report. If the case is successful, it would allow Zimbabwe's courts to apply the country's draconian media laws to any online publisher, putting reporters and editors at risk of arrest if they go to Zimbabwe, or any country with extradition treaties with Zimbabwe.
Once again, we see a case which raises the question of which courts have jurisdiction over online publishing. Is a UK newspaper, with webservers in the UK, and a site accessable to anyone on the net, publishing only in the UK, or is it publishing everywhere where there's net access?" An issue that just doesn't seem to go away ...
In 1964, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
In this and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true, much like the Andreesen v. Freguson case in which it was implied that Andreesen was a bearded linux hippie that lives in his parents' basement. However, Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I don't know which is worse. That you posted it, or that I can read it.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
God, this is so fucking relevant. Thank God timothy is here to alert us to MEDIA ABUSE IN ZIMBABWE.
Bowie J. Poag
I like most of my generation grew up watching the Smurfs. I loved them so much that I tuned in every Saturday morning to see what crazy hijinks those lovable little blue creatures would get up to.
It is just now that I have realized what I was really tuning into each and every Saturday morning was in actuality Socialist Propaganda!! Yes that is correct, Papa Smurf and all of his little Smurf minions are not the happy little characters Hanna Barbara would have us believe! The cartoon was really created by the Russian government in order to indoctrinate the youngest members of western society with Socialist beliefs and ideals thus destroying their resistance to the imminent Russian invasion that was to occur when this generation (my generation) grew up.
To prove my point I submit that 1.) They live in a communal village and are discouraged to leave the village without the company of their fellow Smurfs. 2.) Every Smurf has his own specific job and does not deviate from that job. The job even becomes part of their personality and their name (Brainy Smurf, Handy Smurf, etc.) 3.) If ever a Smurf decides to strike out on his own he is cast into danger in some way of another and it is up to the collective to save him. 4.) Papa Smurf looks an awful lot like Karl Marx plus, he wears all that red.
And let us not forget Smurfette, the lone female Smurf and the embodiment of community property.
In the face of such convincing evidence, it is easy to mark the Smurfs as the Socialists they are, and their nemeses Gargamel (and his maladjusted cat Azrael, a not so subtle attack on ISRAEL) is the personification of Capitalism; out for himself and profit trying to destroy the peaceful commune of Smurfs.
Thankfully our resistance was not destroyed, thanks to the determination of other cartoons such as G.I. Joe and Richie Rich who's goal it was to instill in the children of the western world the morals and values of Capitalism.
...since you put it in those particular words, you'd have a chance of being prosecuted for public use of profanity in any number of countries if this were accepted practice worldwide.
silly United States.
Poor Dmitri
Just one more example of why the U.S. should just nuke all the other countries and let God figure it out. Sure, we'll have a nuclear winter to deal with, but we Americans are a hearty bunch. And sure, it'll make most of the world unliveable, but hey, when the nuclear winter subsides in a few thousand years, there will still be the U.S.
damnit... k is | in 1337 sp34|