Sometimes being a law/journalism student feels like being the child in the middle of a really messy divorce…you love them both despite their flaws (god knows they have their flaws) but you wish they would just stop slinging mud and get along.
The law and journalism profession have always had a love/hate relationship pretty similar to that of bitter jaded divorcees slipping snide comments to the kids at the breakfast table. (journalists call lawyers corrupt sharks …. lawyers call journalists bloodthirsty vultures .... I get very confused as to my allegiances). But snide comments aside it becomes pretty evident both professions understand the necessity of having one another, on one hand journalism ensures the law remains accountable and reflects community standards and on the other the law protects journalists as well as ensuring they don’t transgress too far in pursuit of a scoop.
In particular the law has always been a very firm on how journalists report on trials notably including what details they can disclose to the public. Content with potential to prejudice an individuals right to a fair trial has always been heavily policed by contempt to court and sub judice laws.
However what happens when journalism content moves online? How will the law control the flow of information to ensure fair trials are had or orders of the court for example regarding the public naming of sex offenders aren't circumvented as social networks such as twitter and Facebook begin to rise? Will the highly publicised fair trial or right to privacy be a thing of myth and legend?
An example of online content threatening fair trial is most famously seen in the instance of soccer star Ryan Giggs who was granted an injunction by English courts to prevent the media reporting on an alleged affair he had enjoyed (assumably) with Imogen Thomson (generic reality TV star #33). The injunction was obtained and the system was again working to ensure the balance between the law and media remained checked (ridiculous reasons for injunctions and celebrity privacy arguments aside - although this issue is explored here). What Giggs didn't expect was the dam break wouldn’t come from traditional journalism but rather from the surging waters of the internet and social media which swept aside the meager flimsy injunction he had spent so much money and time on with one little tweet. The law couldn’t do anything.
Again this could be seen in several different perspectives, yes the rich and famous cant keep us out by running to court to file ‘super injunctions’ anymore (which is a great example of increased transparency of the those in power via online mode) but alternatively how will we protect our freedom from the whole twitterverse? What legal jurisdiction will a court need to protect information from the entire internet, a thing that has no jurisdiction. Are they all bite and no bark or is their some kind of jurisdiction to hold twitter users liable for contempt?
A relevant article from the World Editors Forum agrees with the proposition that this issue must be swiftly resolved.
This article from the Guardian also explores this issue well.
I believe that, given the authority and prominence the internet has already gained in our society lawmakers need to start brainstorming ways to ensure accountability or lose control and traditional balance with journalism. Where does that leave law in society?
Guess until then the famous soccer stars among us will have to adopt some greater form of subtlety with next years reality TV star?
No comments:
Post a Comment