Question?

[Anonymous-0]

If a news organization or entity is hired by private
person to conduct an investigation or compile some damaging information on another individual, do they forfeit their protection granted in the Constitution?

 

[[email protected]]

First off, any news collection is covered under free press. It is not private. That information collected can be used in the civil courts even if its not published. I don't know why any news gathering group would want to stick their nose out and be paid by an individual either. That would open them up to criminal charges (stalking/trespassing/ect) and private investigator issues that they would not want to be a part of. Would not be a smart move on their part.

 

[Anonymous-0]

I feel that if a newsperson receives cash or some other type of compensation to discredit a private individual, he is not collecting news , he is accumulating information and therefore should be held accountable like everyone else. I talked to a lawyer once about a person being smeared in my town.He said if the person wanted to find out who was behind it all he should go hang around the local
coffee house. He also said that if the news media was envolved there was nothing he could do about it anyway.How can this be? This is wrong.

 

[Anonymous-0]

How can this be?

It's simple; it's called freedom of the press as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't like it move to a country without freedom of the press.

 

[Goose]

Whatever gave you the idea a news organization would accept money to gather information? That's a function of a private detective.

A long time ago, I was a member of the working press, including managing a newspaper for several years, and, believe me, gathering information for pay for private individuals is so far from the function of the media no one would even consider it. The most immediate repercussion would be the newspaper, or whatever, would be thrown out of their state press association. Once that happened, they might as well lock the doors and call it quits. They'd be finished.

 

[Anonymous-0]

It seems more like abuse of power and the ability to take out any peon they want to without repercussion.The Bill of Rights should be changed to give more "rights" to the majority and less to those who wish to play god with other peoples lives for their on selfish self interests.

 

[noncompos]

A newspaper can"t publish anything it wants, even under freedom of the press, if it gets into libel, defamation, etc...
It"s probably on firmer ground if it"s reporting something already published in another source, as being in another source and not as an item it originated itself...
"Public figures" have much less protection against libel etc than do private individuals, but in any case it can fall into an expansive gray area...it"s often a thorny legal situation to get into, and not one many atty"s will take on unless the prospective defendant has deep pockets, to make the gamble worthwhile...

 

[Goose]

It's axiomatic in the newspaper business that the role of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.

Nuff Sed.

 

[Coffee Helps]

You know, this is a complex area of law. I saw a whole textbook devoted to the press once (it looked like it was written for both journalism & law students.)
Personally I wouldn't subscribe to a newspaper that printed lies (of course there are lies & then there are lies), but I did think the "Onion" was humorous at times. Don't mean to make fun of a serious subject. My 2 cents.

 

[Anonymous-0]

Interesting case in England yesterday about privacy which the Newspaper lost.might be on the BBC website.