Law Lecture 6 - Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act is one of the greatest tools available to journalists today. It covers 130,000 organisations and government bodies, receiving 100,000 requests a year and at a cost of £34million. It allows anyone, not just journalists, the ability to ask for information kept by these bodies and for it to be published. Curiously, only 12% of FOI requests actually come from journalists.

The act covers pretty much everything except when there's a valid reason to not hand the information over, such as official secrets or confidentiality. These "exemptions" are Absolute and Qualified (like privilege). Absolute exemptions relate to official secrets, the Ministry of Defence etc. Qualified exemptions are for things such as ministerial communications and commercial confidentiality. Whilst these are a hinderance as a journalist, there are still plenty of opportunities to uncover great stories due to the FOI Act like the expenses scandal.

Many journalists see now as the Golden Age of the FOI. There's still a treasure trove of information buried away, waiting to be enquired about. In order to combat this, politicians are no longer writing things down to avoid it being "on the record". Such 'on the sofa' politics has allowed for informal chats as opposed to formal meetings where minutes etc have to be kept.

Law Lecture 5 - Copyright

Copyright is an exclusive legal right given to a person who has printed, published or otherwise created something that belongs to them. It could be either physical or intellectual property, but the important fact is that it belongs to that person. The purpose of copyright is to protect the creators of this property. Because of this, copyright infringement is technically stealing. You are able to use a limited amount of another person's work (if it's credited or if it's for the purpose of reviewing). Ignorance to this is no defence and will see you fined for copyright infringement.

Fair dealing is something used by journalists in order to use other peoples work in their own work. However, this work cannot be passed for your own and the usage must be fair and only a small portion of the whole work. Whilst video and to an extent text can be fair dealed, photographes are exempt from fair dealing.

Law Lecture 4 - Privacy and Confidentiality

Privacy and confidentiality is probably the second most important thing (legally) a Journo must be aware of after defamation. Under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, even citizen has a right to privacy. However, whilst people have this right, that doesn't mean reporters are suddenly prevented from reporting about celebrities and other public figures.

There are no problems with publishing pictures (for example) of people for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if that person is on a clear public duty. One famous example in regards to privacy issues related to this. The Princess Caroline of Monaco, legally prevented photographers from taking her picture. One exception to this was if she on a clear public duty (the example used was if she was handing over the trophy at the European Cup final).

Secondly, it's okay to publish pictures if there's consent. This can come either as implicit or explicit. Implicit is when there hasn't been a signed contract, but when someone has posed for the camera or given some hint that they're okay with being photographed. Explicit is when there has been a verbal or written agreement that pictures are okay to be published (such as during fashion shoots etc).

Confidentiality is something that everyone has unless they have signed it away. It's applicable where people to have a reasonable expectation to confidentiality, such as at the doctors or in a private meeting. Curiously, parents are expected to maintain a degree of confidentiality with things their children tell them, but it is not the same the other way round.

Unlike defamation, which is easier to prove, breach of confidence is harder. For something to be confidential, there has to be:

The necessary quality of confidence

AND circumstances imposing an obligation (i.e. a reasonable person would expect something to be kept in confidence such as medical issues at a doctors)

AND there is no permission to publish the information

AND there is a detriment likely to be caused to the person who gave the information (they have to PROVE they've been damaged).

Law Lecture 3 - Defamation

Defamation is the act of either slandering or libelling someone. There are four criteria in which this is measured:

*Causing someone to be lowered in the estimation of right thinking people

*Causing someone to be shunned or avoided

*Disparages someone in their business, trade or profession

*Exposes them to ridicule, hatred or contempt.

As such, it makes it very easy to sue for defamation as all you have to do is prove one of those points. However there are some defences:

*Justification: What you say is true and you can prove it.

*Fair comment: Honestly held opinion based upon facts or priveleged material in the public interest.

*Absolute privilege: Reporting accurately what is said in court.

*Qualified privilege: Police quotes, press releases etc.

*Bane and antidote (defamation removed by context): Removing defamation later on in a story.

*Apologies and clarifications.

You have no defence when:

*You've not checked your facts

*When you've not referred up

*Not putting yourself in their shoes

*Get carried away by a spicy story

*Not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion

It's crucial to be able to recognise risk as a journalist. Recognising risk can save you a lot of aggravation and potentially a lot of money. Consider who you're writing about and whether or not they're capable of suing. Chances are a postman in some county miles away isn't going to sue (although that doesn't give you an excuse to defame him), but someone like Elton John probably would. If you must write it, be certain you have a defence. If you aren't sure, ask a lawyer. More often than not, they aren't going to mind.

Law Lecture 1 - Overview

The first law lecture of the year was more of an overview as to what the course would involve. To me, it was very similar to stuff that we'd already learnt in the first year (which I guess is a good thing).

The key theme of this course is how the law affects journalists, both for the better and for the worse. An understanding of the law makes you a better journalist and also manages to keep you out of prison!

Perhaps the key skill to take from law, even if the exact details are forgotten, is to recognise risk. Say you're working on a murder case, the risk of contempt of court is very high. Not only do you risk the case being thrown out, but you also risk being sent to jail yourself.

To me, law for a journalist is a handy tool to keep in mind and up to date. I guess I'd better go out and buy the latest McNae's...