When I went home at the weekend there was a flyer posted through our door. I live in Portchester and for at least a year now people within our community have been complaining about the smell from a local farm. It was to say the very least unpleasant and hit you everytime you walked out of your front door. I personally never knew what it was and just assumed it was a local farm.
Our Environment Agency has now given us information about what the farm actually does and how long it will be continuing. It is in fact the Downend Composting Site, which takes the green waste from our houses, shreds the waste then forms it into rows where the composting process begins. The end product is soil which is rich in nutrients and is peat free. The site will close in December 2010 and all composting operations will end.
Now I am aware of why the odour is being produced I am more accepting to the smell as I know the process is going to benefit the environment and no doubt us at some point.
I do think however that the local goverment and Environmental Agency need to inform us of things happening within our community as this will prevent a lot of complaints from citizens and we will be more accepting.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
HCJ - Week 8 Rousseau 'The Social Contract'
This week Claire and I had to lead the history and context of journalism seminar. Our topic was the 'Social Contract' written by Jean Rousseau. Here are my notes on the contract:
Subject of the First Book –
‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’ – by this Rousseau means that society puts man in chains through rules and restrictions.
The First Societies –
Family is the only natural society. The child owes obedience to their father and the father owes a duty of care to his child. This bond dissolves eventually and both the father and child return to independence. If this does not happen however, the family is only maintained by convention.
He believes that everyone should have their own independence which as a result means their family is no longer natural.
Man’s first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes himself, and when he reaches year of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.
A family is said to be a model of political societies. The father is seen as the ruler and the children are seen as the people. Rousseau states they are all born free and equal however they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. This illustrates that people thought it was their most rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they had in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
It is stated that the father is repaid for the care he takes of them by the love for his children, whereas in the State, the chief takes pleasure in commanding because he cannot love the people under him.
Both Hobbes and Grotius (who was a jurist in the Dutch Republic and a philosopher) believe that the human race belongs to hundreds of men as oppose to hundreds of men belonging to the human race.
Aristotle saw that no man is equal by nature. He believed that some men are born for slavery whereas other are born for dominion. He then stated that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. In ‘The Subject of the First Book’, it was said that ‘man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.’ A slave however, loses everything in their chains even the desire of escaping from them.
3 – The Right of the Strongest
Rousseau states ‘the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master’. Strength is measured by force and it is argued here, that to stop force should be a necessity and not seen as an act of will. Essentially it is wrong to view someone carrying out a necessity, as performing one of their duties as it is not just a duty of a master to stop force, it is the duty of everyone and should not be praised. Rousseau goes on to say that ‘force does not create right’, which illustrates that ‘the right of the strongest’ does not define justice.
4 – Slavery
This passage questions the concept of slaves and their motives behind becoming a slave.
No one is born with authority over anyone else. It is conventions created over time which form the basis of legitimate authority among everyone. Grotius asks, ‘if an individual can alienate his liberty and make himself the slave of a master, why could not someone so the same and make itself subject to a king?’ In this instance the slave has sold himself to the king, however, Grotius questions what this slave has left to preserve and what they gain from becoming a slave. He says, ‘Tranquillity is also found in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in?’
It is beyond paternity rights for a man to alienate his children. Up until the years of discretion the father can lay down conditions for his children’s preservation and well being. An idea evolved that in every government the people should be in a position to accept or reject it, however this caused the issue that the government would no longer be arbitrary.
It was pointed out that surrendering the rights of humanity renouncing being a man is a result of renouncing liberty.
Grotius explains that there is another origin of slavery and that is war. This is because the people defeated in war have to buy their lives back at his price of liberty, whereas the winners of war have the right of killing the vanquished.
War is begun due to ‘things’ as oppose to people. This is because a war cannot arise out of personal relations it has to be by real relations whereby the laws hold authority. War is therefore a relation between state and state, to which individuals are only enemies accidentally as soldiers. Once a war is ended and the soldiers surrender, they become equal again and no-one has the right to take anyone’s life. Within war it is only acceptable to kill an enemy if it is not possible to enslave them. If slaves are made within war, they only have to obey their master as far as agreed. By doing this, the master is far from putting any authority on the slave other than force.
5 – That Me Must Always Go Back To A First Convention
In this chapter Rousseau looks at the way power and authority are given to others, to use over other people. He implies that for a convention to exist there must have been unanimity (everyone being of one mind) at some point in history.
6 – The Social Compact
In this chapter Rousseau explains how it is necessary for the social contract to be developed. The social compact is what people made when they left the state of nature and entered a civilised society.
It is said that the human race will perish unless the state changed the manner of its existence.
The problem that arose was;
‘…To find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.’
Any alterations of any of the clauses within the act would make them ‘vain’ and ‘ineffective’.
If all the clauses were properly understood they can be combined into one. Which would be; the total alienation of each associate, with all his rights and whilst being among the rest of the community, will result in the conditions being the same for everyone to which no-one will have the right or interest to make them ‘burdensome’ to anyone else.
The alienation of each associate, and people retaining certain rights, would lead to the state on nature continuing, however the association would no longer work or take effect.
The result of giving up all of himself, is to gain an equivalent to in return for all his losses.
Rousseau then states that by taking away what is not the essence of the social compact, it becomes reduced;
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an invisible part of the whole."
This means that although the person is ‘invisible’ all people under the supreme direction are seen as equal and part of a community, and therefore are then regarded as the ‘people’.
7- The Sovereign
In this chapter it becomes apparent that each individual is bound in a double capacity, whereby they are a member of the state to the sovereign and are bound to the individuals, as well as being a member of the State to the sovereign. This is because the act of association involves a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals.
The sovereign cannot be bound to the people because it would be against the nature of the body politic for the sovereign to introduce a law, which it could not violate. The seriousness of violating the act is expressed when it is stated that it would be ‘self-annihilation’ which means to kill yourself.
The sovereign must have only the interests of the individuals who have composed. As well as this the sovereign must not guarantee anything to the individuals, as it is impossible to please or hurt everyone.
Every individual may have their own will, which may contrast or differ from the general will, and looking at their own will would be an injustice. Simply looking at the general will, will prevent any personal dependence and therefore introduce the workings of the political machine.
8 – The Civil State
In this section, Rousseau is stating that when someone passes from the state of nature to the civil state, he then has instinct in regards to his actions. Due to this change, he is made to consider other citizens before he acts. Entering into the civil state, he will become an intelligent being and a man, due to the advantages such as, ‘his feelings so ennobled’ and his extended ideas.
Rousseau explains that when comparing the two, we must realise that natural liberty is bounded only by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty (which is one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country) is limited by general will. When mentioning possession, I think Rousseau is saying that being a citizen means you have right over your possessions due to the effect of force, whereas in natural law this does not exist.
9 – Real Property
Citizens give themselves to the State, and as a result of this, their possessions become property under the Sovereign. Although the sovereign has the most power, the property still belongs to the citizen as it is by right of the first occupier.
Within this passage, I think Rousseau is stating that citizens cannot be greedy when it comes to ownership, and if that person has worked for the ownership of that product he will be respected by others.
It is also implied in this passage that Rousseau would prefer men to share land, for example, equally and enjoy it all together rather than having separate owners and separate rights.
Rousseau concludes book 1 of the Social Contract by saying;
"Instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right".
(Hope these help)
Subject of the First Book –
‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’ – by this Rousseau means that society puts man in chains through rules and restrictions.
The First Societies –
Family is the only natural society. The child owes obedience to their father and the father owes a duty of care to his child. This bond dissolves eventually and both the father and child return to independence. If this does not happen however, the family is only maintained by convention.
He believes that everyone should have their own independence which as a result means their family is no longer natural.
Man’s first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes himself, and when he reaches year of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.
A family is said to be a model of political societies. The father is seen as the ruler and the children are seen as the people. Rousseau states they are all born free and equal however they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. This illustrates that people thought it was their most rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they had in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
It is stated that the father is repaid for the care he takes of them by the love for his children, whereas in the State, the chief takes pleasure in commanding because he cannot love the people under him.
Both Hobbes and Grotius (who was a jurist in the Dutch Republic and a philosopher) believe that the human race belongs to hundreds of men as oppose to hundreds of men belonging to the human race.
Aristotle saw that no man is equal by nature. He believed that some men are born for slavery whereas other are born for dominion. He then stated that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. In ‘The Subject of the First Book’, it was said that ‘man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.’ A slave however, loses everything in their chains even the desire of escaping from them.
3 – The Right of the Strongest
Rousseau states ‘the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master’. Strength is measured by force and it is argued here, that to stop force should be a necessity and not seen as an act of will. Essentially it is wrong to view someone carrying out a necessity, as performing one of their duties as it is not just a duty of a master to stop force, it is the duty of everyone and should not be praised. Rousseau goes on to say that ‘force does not create right’, which illustrates that ‘the right of the strongest’ does not define justice.
4 – Slavery
This passage questions the concept of slaves and their motives behind becoming a slave.
No one is born with authority over anyone else. It is conventions created over time which form the basis of legitimate authority among everyone. Grotius asks, ‘if an individual can alienate his liberty and make himself the slave of a master, why could not someone so the same and make itself subject to a king?’ In this instance the slave has sold himself to the king, however, Grotius questions what this slave has left to preserve and what they gain from becoming a slave. He says, ‘Tranquillity is also found in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in?’
It is beyond paternity rights for a man to alienate his children. Up until the years of discretion the father can lay down conditions for his children’s preservation and well being. An idea evolved that in every government the people should be in a position to accept or reject it, however this caused the issue that the government would no longer be arbitrary.
It was pointed out that surrendering the rights of humanity renouncing being a man is a result of renouncing liberty.
Grotius explains that there is another origin of slavery and that is war. This is because the people defeated in war have to buy their lives back at his price of liberty, whereas the winners of war have the right of killing the vanquished.
War is begun due to ‘things’ as oppose to people. This is because a war cannot arise out of personal relations it has to be by real relations whereby the laws hold authority. War is therefore a relation between state and state, to which individuals are only enemies accidentally as soldiers. Once a war is ended and the soldiers surrender, they become equal again and no-one has the right to take anyone’s life. Within war it is only acceptable to kill an enemy if it is not possible to enslave them. If slaves are made within war, they only have to obey their master as far as agreed. By doing this, the master is far from putting any authority on the slave other than force.
5 – That Me Must Always Go Back To A First Convention
In this chapter Rousseau looks at the way power and authority are given to others, to use over other people. He implies that for a convention to exist there must have been unanimity (everyone being of one mind) at some point in history.
6 – The Social Compact
In this chapter Rousseau explains how it is necessary for the social contract to be developed. The social compact is what people made when they left the state of nature and entered a civilised society.
It is said that the human race will perish unless the state changed the manner of its existence.
The problem that arose was;
‘…To find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.’
Any alterations of any of the clauses within the act would make them ‘vain’ and ‘ineffective’.
If all the clauses were properly understood they can be combined into one. Which would be; the total alienation of each associate, with all his rights and whilst being among the rest of the community, will result in the conditions being the same for everyone to which no-one will have the right or interest to make them ‘burdensome’ to anyone else.
The alienation of each associate, and people retaining certain rights, would lead to the state on nature continuing, however the association would no longer work or take effect.
The result of giving up all of himself, is to gain an equivalent to in return for all his losses.
Rousseau then states that by taking away what is not the essence of the social compact, it becomes reduced;
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an invisible part of the whole."
This means that although the person is ‘invisible’ all people under the supreme direction are seen as equal and part of a community, and therefore are then regarded as the ‘people’.
7- The Sovereign
In this chapter it becomes apparent that each individual is bound in a double capacity, whereby they are a member of the state to the sovereign and are bound to the individuals, as well as being a member of the State to the sovereign. This is because the act of association involves a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals.
The sovereign cannot be bound to the people because it would be against the nature of the body politic for the sovereign to introduce a law, which it could not violate. The seriousness of violating the act is expressed when it is stated that it would be ‘self-annihilation’ which means to kill yourself.
The sovereign must have only the interests of the individuals who have composed. As well as this the sovereign must not guarantee anything to the individuals, as it is impossible to please or hurt everyone.
Every individual may have their own will, which may contrast or differ from the general will, and looking at their own will would be an injustice. Simply looking at the general will, will prevent any personal dependence and therefore introduce the workings of the political machine.
8 – The Civil State
In this section, Rousseau is stating that when someone passes from the state of nature to the civil state, he then has instinct in regards to his actions. Due to this change, he is made to consider other citizens before he acts. Entering into the civil state, he will become an intelligent being and a man, due to the advantages such as, ‘his feelings so ennobled’ and his extended ideas.
Rousseau explains that when comparing the two, we must realise that natural liberty is bounded only by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty (which is one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country) is limited by general will. When mentioning possession, I think Rousseau is saying that being a citizen means you have right over your possessions due to the effect of force, whereas in natural law this does not exist.
9 – Real Property
Citizens give themselves to the State, and as a result of this, their possessions become property under the Sovereign. Although the sovereign has the most power, the property still belongs to the citizen as it is by right of the first occupier.
Within this passage, I think Rousseau is stating that citizens cannot be greedy when it comes to ownership, and if that person has worked for the ownership of that product he will be respected by others.
It is also implied in this passage that Rousseau would prefer men to share land, for example, equally and enjoy it all together rather than having separate owners and separate rights.
Rousseau concludes book 1 of the Social Contract by saying;
"Instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right".
(Hope these help)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Week 8 Media Law - Freedom of Information Act 2000
To begin with I'll state the basic principle of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
'Any person making a request for information from a public authority is entitled;
a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.'
The public authorities must disclose information without any financial charge for finding or collating it, if meeting the request costs the public authority no more than £600 or £450. The introduction of the Act has given journalists and researchers great success. There are four disclosures which have been prompted by regional and local journalists when using the Act. These are;
- the number of under 16's requiring treatment for drug problems and alcohol-related illness at a local hospital,
- the number of police arrests for alleged crimes,
- How many crimes reported to police are given no publicity by the police - including alleged sexual assaults, and
- how many children have been excluded from local schools.
BBC journalists have prompted the disclosures regarding relations that;
- only two councils had met goverment targets on the welfare of children in council care,
- councils in the South of England had made the same planning procedure mistake 68 times in relation to moblie phone masts, and
- elderly residents of a nursing home allegedly suffered verbal and physical abuse.
For other stories to which journalists have written from the use of the Act visit, http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/index.shtml
A few examples of public authorities under the 2000 Act are;
- National government department and ministries
- The House of Commons
- The armed forces
- Local government authorities
- National park authorities
- Universities, colleges and schools
- The NHS
- Various advisory councils, and regulatory bodies with statutory powers.
The UK's security and intelligence agencies are not covered by the FOI Act 2000. These included the MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and are all exempt from the Act. This means they do not have to repsond to FOI requests. In addition to this, courts and tribunals are not covered by the Act.
If a public authority receives a request for information, it must normally make a repsonse within 20 working days, either supplying the information or explaining why it cannot be supplied. The public authority may not hold the information, or the request would exceed the cost limits for the provision of free information, or the information is covered by exemptions under the Act, and therefore need not be supplied. In any of these instances, the public authority must communicate these restrictions.
Under s48 of the FOIA, information is defined as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act does not require a public authority to gather information it does not already have.
The Act allows authorities to refuse to supply information on various grounds. These are known as exemptions. The Information Commissioner's Office website has helpful guidance on these to which it enables searches of his decisions on their use categorised usefully by which exemption was claimed.
Absolute exmptions are whereby the public authority does not have to give any reason for nt disclosing the information, beyond stating that the exemption applies because of the nature of the information. Absolute exemptions include; information reasonably accessible by other means, information supplied to the public authority by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters, court records, personal information and information provided to the authority in confidence by another party.
Qualified exemption means that if the public authority decides not to supply the information in these categories, it must give reasons, showing how it has applied the 'public interest test' to justify its refusal to provide information. Information can be withheld if the public interest in withholding the information is greater than the public interest in releasing it.
Public authorities should disclose information if it has the following factors;
- Furthering the understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day,
- Promoting accountability and transparency by public authorities for decisions taken by them,
- Promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money,
- Allowing individuals and companies to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives, and
- Bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.
A disadvantage of the FOIA 2000 is that there is no time limit on how long the public authorities have to apply the public interest test. This may delay the disclosure of any information.
If the public authority fail to produce the information within 20 working days, or fail any contact what so ever, the requester can ask the authority to conduct an 'internal review' into such failure or refusal.
The BBC, Channel 4 and S4C were made subject to the FOI Act because they are public service broadcasters. The Act states that disclosure provisions only apply to information they hold 'for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature'. By protection journalistic material held by these broadcast institutions, the Act does not require them to accept;
- Requests attempting to reveal their journalists' confidential sources, or
- Requests by rival news organisations, or by the subjects of journalistic investigations, attempting to secure disclosure of material gathered in a journalistic investigation, including any footage/audio not broadcast.
'Any person making a request for information from a public authority is entitled;
a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.'
The public authorities must disclose information without any financial charge for finding or collating it, if meeting the request costs the public authority no more than £600 or £450. The introduction of the Act has given journalists and researchers great success. There are four disclosures which have been prompted by regional and local journalists when using the Act. These are;
- the number of under 16's requiring treatment for drug problems and alcohol-related illness at a local hospital,
- the number of police arrests for alleged crimes,
- How many crimes reported to police are given no publicity by the police - including alleged sexual assaults, and
- how many children have been excluded from local schools.
BBC journalists have prompted the disclosures regarding relations that;
- only two councils had met goverment targets on the welfare of children in council care,
- councils in the South of England had made the same planning procedure mistake 68 times in relation to moblie phone masts, and
- elderly residents of a nursing home allegedly suffered verbal and physical abuse.
For other stories to which journalists have written from the use of the Act visit, http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/index.shtml
A few examples of public authorities under the 2000 Act are;
- National government department and ministries
- The House of Commons
- The armed forces
- Local government authorities
- National park authorities
- Universities, colleges and schools
- The NHS
- Various advisory councils, and regulatory bodies with statutory powers.
The UK's security and intelligence agencies are not covered by the FOI Act 2000. These included the MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and are all exempt from the Act. This means they do not have to repsond to FOI requests. In addition to this, courts and tribunals are not covered by the Act.
If a public authority receives a request for information, it must normally make a repsonse within 20 working days, either supplying the information or explaining why it cannot be supplied. The public authority may not hold the information, or the request would exceed the cost limits for the provision of free information, or the information is covered by exemptions under the Act, and therefore need not be supplied. In any of these instances, the public authority must communicate these restrictions.
Under s48 of the FOIA, information is defined as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act does not require a public authority to gather information it does not already have.
The Act allows authorities to refuse to supply information on various grounds. These are known as exemptions. The Information Commissioner's Office website has helpful guidance on these to which it enables searches of his decisions on their use categorised usefully by which exemption was claimed.
Absolute exmptions are whereby the public authority does not have to give any reason for nt disclosing the information, beyond stating that the exemption applies because of the nature of the information. Absolute exemptions include; information reasonably accessible by other means, information supplied to the public authority by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters, court records, personal information and information provided to the authority in confidence by another party.
Qualified exemption means that if the public authority decides not to supply the information in these categories, it must give reasons, showing how it has applied the 'public interest test' to justify its refusal to provide information. Information can be withheld if the public interest in withholding the information is greater than the public interest in releasing it.
Public authorities should disclose information if it has the following factors;
- Furthering the understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day,
- Promoting accountability and transparency by public authorities for decisions taken by them,
- Promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money,
- Allowing individuals and companies to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives, and
- Bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.
A disadvantage of the FOIA 2000 is that there is no time limit on how long the public authorities have to apply the public interest test. This may delay the disclosure of any information.
If the public authority fail to produce the information within 20 working days, or fail any contact what so ever, the requester can ask the authority to conduct an 'internal review' into such failure or refusal.
The BBC, Channel 4 and S4C were made subject to the FOI Act because they are public service broadcasters. The Act states that disclosure provisions only apply to information they hold 'for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature'. By protection journalistic material held by these broadcast institutions, the Act does not require them to accept;
- Requests attempting to reveal their journalists' confidential sources, or
- Requests by rival news organisations, or by the subjects of journalistic investigations, attempting to secure disclosure of material gathered in a journalistic investigation, including any footage/audio not broadcast.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Fury at Brown Once Again
Within the Daily Express today, one of the main stories is of 6 soldiers who have died whilst defending our country in Afganistan. These soldiers were not killed whilst fighting though, they were killed by an Afganistan within a secure checkpoint. I cannot even begin to say I can understand how the families of these soldiers are feeling because I've never experienced anything like it. However I know what it feels like to lose a family member and even then I was distraught. So I am thinking of these families, but I have no idea what they're going through.
Whilst reading this story I have found out that Gordon Brown has lost a child himself. He has handwritten a letter of condolence to every family who has lost someone to the war in Afganistan. The mother of a soldier received a letter from Gordon Brown, but was outraged by it.
Due to loss of sight in one eye and deteriorating sight in the other, Brown is unable to fully form the words whilst writing. The mother of the soldier has said that Gordon Brown made numerous spelling mistakes. But this has led to people being angry at Brown for his spelling, when personally I think this is irrelevant at this time. At least he has taken the time to hand write letters to all the families who have suffered a loss, when could of asked someone else to do it and signed at the bottom. I think this has been blown out of proportion and was done simply done to show sympathy to her family.
Whilst reading this story I have found out that Gordon Brown has lost a child himself. He has handwritten a letter of condolence to every family who has lost someone to the war in Afganistan. The mother of a soldier received a letter from Gordon Brown, but was outraged by it.
Due to loss of sight in one eye and deteriorating sight in the other, Brown is unable to fully form the words whilst writing. The mother of the soldier has said that Gordon Brown made numerous spelling mistakes. But this has led to people being angry at Brown for his spelling, when personally I think this is irrelevant at this time. At least he has taken the time to hand write letters to all the families who have suffered a loss, when could of asked someone else to do it and signed at the bottom. I think this has been blown out of proportion and was done simply done to show sympathy to her family.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Week 7 Media Law - Investigative Journalism
To begin with, 'investigative journalism' is where journalists go off the agenda and decide the agenda themselves. This could include subject matter on a lightweight or television or entertainment-led agenda. The 'classic' investigations are based on heavy subjects, and the most common subject of investigative journalism is based on financial topics.
The classic 'off agenda' is miscarriage of justice whereby people are framed and go to jail. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1995 and has the power to refer to the Court of Appeal any conviction or sentence if the Commission considers there is a real possibility it will be quashed. The right of a convicted prisoner to be visited in jail by a journalist investigating whether there had been a miscarriage of jsutive was upheld in R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex p Simms [1999] 3 All ER 400.
There is an evidence gap between civil and criminal standards of proof. For civil law, the standards of proof are based on the balance of probability, whereas the standard of proof for criminal law has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The Daily Mail's famous branding of five men, suspected of killing the London teenager Stephen Lawrence, as 'murderers' is illustrative of how journalism can operate this gap between civil and criminal law. As this story was not on the agenda, this also illustrates a very effective piece of investigative journalism.
Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights lays down the law on the right to privacy. It states;
"1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
-in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of a country,
-for the prevention of disorder or crime,
-for the protection of health or morals, or
-for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
Journalists were concerned about the right to privacy effecting their freedom to publish true information of public interest. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act states that where a court is considering imposing an unjunction in a matter involving freedom of expression and journalistic, literary or artisic material, it must have particular regard to the extent to which the media defendant has complied with 'any relevant privacy code'.
Breach of confidence is based on the principle that a person who has acquired information in confidence should not take unfair advantage of it. In a new approach to the law of confidence, the questionis whether Article 8 was 'engaged' which depends on whether the information was private. The decision is also based on whether the person claiming had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
The Max Mosley case is an important case in regards to privacy. In this case the News of the World printed the story of the involvement of Max Mosley in a sadomasochistic orgy with five women, claiming that it had a nazi theme. It also put secretly filmed footage on its website. The News of the World's informant was one of the women who had taken part in the sado-masochistic activities. Mr Justice Eady held that the woman informant owed a duty of confidence, as in previous cases where the relationship was transitory. It was said that if the activities had mocked the way in which Jews were treated in concentration camps or parodied Holocaust horror, then there would have been a public interest. The judge could not find a public interest to justify the intrusion, filming or publication.
When investigative journalism is based on celebrity lifestyles or health, the journalists may not have the protection they expected even if the way they obtained and checked the information conformed to the 10 part test set out in the Reynolds case.
Protection of confidential sources of information is the key professional duty of a journalist. Refusal to reveal secret sources of information, however, could lead to prosecution for contempt of court.
An important point which was highly stressed within the lecture today is subterfuge. This means that when interviewing, you have to make it clear that you are a journalist and that you are reporting. Also as a journalist you need to make it known that anything that is said may be published. When recording you must seek consent, and this consent must be explicit. Once consented, almost anything can be published. If there is no consent to the information being published then you will have no evidence, however you may still quote the person interviewed.
The classic 'off agenda' is miscarriage of justice whereby people are framed and go to jail. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1995 and has the power to refer to the Court of Appeal any conviction or sentence if the Commission considers there is a real possibility it will be quashed. The right of a convicted prisoner to be visited in jail by a journalist investigating whether there had been a miscarriage of jsutive was upheld in R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex p Simms [1999] 3 All ER 400.
There is an evidence gap between civil and criminal standards of proof. For civil law, the standards of proof are based on the balance of probability, whereas the standard of proof for criminal law has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The Daily Mail's famous branding of five men, suspected of killing the London teenager Stephen Lawrence, as 'murderers' is illustrative of how journalism can operate this gap between civil and criminal law. As this story was not on the agenda, this also illustrates a very effective piece of investigative journalism.
Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights lays down the law on the right to privacy. It states;
"1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
-in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of a country,
-for the prevention of disorder or crime,
-for the protection of health or morals, or
-for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."
Journalists were concerned about the right to privacy effecting their freedom to publish true information of public interest. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act states that where a court is considering imposing an unjunction in a matter involving freedom of expression and journalistic, literary or artisic material, it must have particular regard to the extent to which the media defendant has complied with 'any relevant privacy code'.
Breach of confidence is based on the principle that a person who has acquired information in confidence should not take unfair advantage of it. In a new approach to the law of confidence, the questionis whether Article 8 was 'engaged' which depends on whether the information was private. The decision is also based on whether the person claiming had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
The Max Mosley case is an important case in regards to privacy. In this case the News of the World printed the story of the involvement of Max Mosley in a sadomasochistic orgy with five women, claiming that it had a nazi theme. It also put secretly filmed footage on its website. The News of the World's informant was one of the women who had taken part in the sado-masochistic activities. Mr Justice Eady held that the woman informant owed a duty of confidence, as in previous cases where the relationship was transitory. It was said that if the activities had mocked the way in which Jews were treated in concentration camps or parodied Holocaust horror, then there would have been a public interest. The judge could not find a public interest to justify the intrusion, filming or publication.
When investigative journalism is based on celebrity lifestyles or health, the journalists may not have the protection they expected even if the way they obtained and checked the information conformed to the 10 part test set out in the Reynolds case.
Protection of confidential sources of information is the key professional duty of a journalist. Refusal to reveal secret sources of information, however, could lead to prosecution for contempt of court.
An important point which was highly stressed within the lecture today is subterfuge. This means that when interviewing, you have to make it clear that you are a journalist and that you are reporting. Also as a journalist you need to make it known that anything that is said may be published. When recording you must seek consent, and this consent must be explicit. Once consented, almost anything can be published. If there is no consent to the information being published then you will have no evidence, however you may still quote the person interviewed.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Week 6 Media Law - Copyright
This week in media law we have been looking at copyright.
Copyright is a branch of intellectual propertylaw and it protects the products of people's skill, creativity, labour or time. Copyright protects and literary, dramatic, artistic or musical work, sound recording, film, broadcast or typographical arrangement. This was laid done in the Copyright designs and Patents Act 1988. Reproduction of a substantial part of a copyright work may constitute infringement. I found it interesting to note that for a work to be protected by copyright it must satisfy the test of originality. (In othe words, some work or effort must have gone into it.)
In regards to news stories, there is no copyright in facts and information. However, copyright exists in the form of which the information is expressed by the writer and the selection and arrangement of the material as all of these aspects involve skill and labour. Even though there is no copyright in news stories, if someone from another newspaper is persistently taking facts and information from another and rewriting them, that may still be an infringement because there has been skill and labour gone into producing the news story. When reporting current stories, the defence of fair dealing may sometimes allow some quoting from another paper. Fair dealing with a copyright work for the purposes of reporting current events is not an infringement provided it is accompanied by sufficient acknowledgement of the work and its author and provided the work has been made available to the public.
An official of a sporting trade association may find it part of their duty to make material available to the paper free of charge, however the copyright is still the association's and can withdraw the facility, or start to make a charge or prevent another journal from copying it.
It is important to note that copyright material supplied to newspapers by outside contributors will normally be owned by the contributor. For example a photograph. Section 17 of the Copyright Act has laid down that publication without permission of a photograph of the whole or substantial part of a television image is an infringement. Also, those who provide a broadcast service must make information about the programmes available to any newspaper or magazine publisher, wishing to use it, through a licensing scheme. This was established within the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Permission must be sought to publish the whole or part of an artistic work such as a map or drawing.
As soon as speeches are recorded there is copyright in the spoken words, even if they are not delivered from a script. There are four conditions whereby it is not infringement to use the record of words for reporting current events. These are set out in section 58 of the Copyright Act.
1) The record is a direct record and not taken from a previous record or broadcast.
2) The speaker did not prohibit the making of the record and it did not infringe any existing copyright.
3) Theuse being made of the record, or material taken from it, was not of a kind prohibited by the speaker or copyright owner before the record was made.
4) The use being made of the record is with the authority of the person who is lawfully in possession of it.
The first owner of any work is the author, but in the case of work done in the course of employment, the employer is the owner, subject to any contrary agreement. There is no automatic right on the part of a newspaper or magazine or periodical to the copyright of work done by non-members of staff, even if the work has been ordered. The copyright can be assigned to the newspaper or magazine but an assignment is not effective unless in writing signed by the copyright owner.
If a freelance or a commercial photographer has commissioned a photograph, the copyright is owned by the photographer unless there is an agreement to the contrary. A person who commisions a photograph for private or domestic purposes is protected by the Moral Rights section of the Copyright Act. The right in this case is not to have copies of the photograph issued to the public even if he does not own the copyright. Moral rights given to the aurthor of work gives the author right to be identified, not to have their work subject to derogatory treatment and not to have work falsely attributed to him.
Crown Copyright protects civil servants who in the course of their employment have produced work. Crown Copyright has been used in the courts to prevent the publication of material and to threaten former public servants with action for revealing matters concerning their employment.
Disputes have arose between opposing newspapers due to section 30 of the Copyright Act excluding photographs from the defence of fair dealing. These disputes have arose when one paper has lifted photographs from another paper.
It is held that works must be made available to the public. The importance of this is emphasised by changes to copyright law brought about as a result of the implementation of the European Information Society Directive 2001 EC by way of the Copyright and Related Regulations 2003.
Fair dealing does not cover such things as using too much of a work than is necessary when reporting current events.
Copying of a published report is not permitted even though there is no copyright infringement in reporting Parliament, the courts or public inquiries.
An example of infringement of copyright was when The Sun used a still image from a security video showing the lenght of a visit by Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed to the villa Windsor. It was held by the Court of Appeal in 2000 to be an infringement of copyright which could not be defended either as a publication in the public interest or as fair dealing for reporting current events.
The Copyright and Patents Act 1988 states that nothing within the Act affects 'any rule of law preventing or restricing the enforcement of copyright on the grounds of public interest or otherwise'. A court would be entitled to refuse to enforce copyright if the work was;
1) Immoral, Scandalous or contrary to family life;
2) Injurious to public life, public health or safety, or the administration of justice; or
3) Incited to encourage others to act in a way injurious to those matters.
There is copyright in the typographical arrangement of newspaper arrangements. However the House of Lords held that a fascimile copy of the cutting of an article from a page which gave no indication of how the rest of the page was laid out was not a substantial part of the published edition and this was not an infringement of the copyright of the typographical arrangement.
The lenght of copyright was ammended by the Government in 1955. The length of copyright now stands at 70 years from the end of the year of the author's death. This decision now confirms with a European Union Directive.
The right of freedom of Expression under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, was held to provide no defence for infringement of copyright over and above those defences already provided by the Copyright Act 1988.
An example of a remedy for the breach of copyright is 'civil action'. The owner of the copyright can obtain an injuction in the High Court or County court to restrain a person from infringing his copyright as well as seeking damages and an order for the possession of infringing copies of the work and of material used in the infringement.
Prosecution is the punishment for infringement, however this does not apply to journalistic activity.
Innocent infringement is where the infringer did not know and had no reason to believe the work was subject to copyright. In an instance like this the owner is entitled to an amount of profits but not to damages.
If the owner of a copyright work has encouraged or allowed another to make use of that work without complaint, this may destroy a claim for infringement of copyright. This is known as acquiescence.
I've found this blog which provides very useful information about copyright online.
I also found this link about a copyright settlement between Coldplay and Joe Satriani:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)