|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.
Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse.
Really?
the difference as I see it is the corporation, which is only after your cash, will leave you alone once it becomes damn clear that you're not going to (or can't) give them any. Whereas the State, which is after control, will never leave you alone. No corporation is going to persecute people if it ends up losing them money, but the State will spend millions just to keep us under its thumb, even if it never sees a penny of that money again.
Don't kid yourself - companies LOVE to harass citizens in any number of ways. They seem to spend a lot of time these days googling any reference to themselves on social networking and even board sites like this one and threaten and even sue individuals for merely stating their opinion of products or services purchased and/or provided. Corporations can be every bit as dictatorial and hell making as the State - and it's all in the pursuit of money. They follow and harass anyone with the slightest bit of fame or public exposure and some make up dirt on others in the pursuit of profit. Occasionally they are sued, but it's all "the cost of doing business. Add that to the other crap I mentioned and the current job climate that has encouraged abuse of employees and it gets quite ugly. All in the name of making money.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
Did they act illegally in that instance? I hadn't heard that suggested, but I didn't follow the story that closely.
But yes, your example illustrates what public interest is actually about - exposing corruption in the public sphere. It's a lot more questionable what public interest there is in helping with the prosecution of a private citizen when that citizen is already charged and up for a trial.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think they obtained the accounts illegally.
There might sometimes be legitimate public interest in a journalist unearthing key information about someone charged with a crime, particularly if there is suspicion that the police are incompetent.
I think it is case by case. To say that journalists must always obey the law and never use illegal methods is going too far in my opinion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
A free press has always been another check on government, but to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far. Even law enforcement must obtain warrants with probable cause evidence to obtain a wiretap, search private property or even place GPS trackers on vehicles for the purpose of following people.
In the case of being a check on government abuse, I'm not sure if the Washington Post reporters who exposed Watergate here broke any laws, though people who supplied them with the facts for the story did prior to meeting with them. Fortunately, most politicians are arrogantly stupid and think that either they are above the law or that no one will catch them when they do stupid and illegal things, so it doesn't involve doing something illegal to catch them and there's always someone around with a camera phone or a microphone handily nearby, or the politician exposes themselves through doing something stupid in public and anything on a computer is never completely deleted.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think they obtained the accounts illegally.
There might sometimes be legitimate public interest in a journalist unearthing key information about someone charged with a crime, particularly if there is suspicion that the police are incompetent.
I think it is case by case. To say that journalists must always obey the law and never use illegal methods is going too far in my opinion.
I went looking for a bit more background. Found this in a BBC FAQ that was around at the time of the scandal:
quote:
Police were asked to investigate the leak but chose not to - having concluded that a public interest defence would be a "significant hurdle" to any successful prosecution.
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I suppose now I'd have to look up more detail on exactly what the law requires in terms of a public interest defence. It's certainly a darn sight narrower than just "interesting to the public", which is frequently what journalists mean when they trot the phrase out. On the other hand, the MP expenses matter is right in the dead centre of what public interest is all about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.
That's a very particular way of phrasing it. I would suggest that "obtaining information on citizens (i.e. not normally private ones) where there is good reason to believe that a matter of public interest is at stake" is not too far for journalists to go.
Watergate would be a good example, had illegal methods been necessary.
I think these instances should be very exceptional rather than the norm, should all be discussed with editors, and the journalists should be prepared to go to face the consequences of the law if their justification doesn't stack up afterwards.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I'm no expert*. But I wonder if that is a reference to precedent and shared understandings rather than something explicitly codified in law.
* meaning I have not the faintest idea.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I'm no expert*. But I wonder if that is a reference to precedent and shared understandings rather than something explicitly codified in law.
* meaning I have not the faintest idea.
Yes to precedent, in that I expect it is something from the 'common law' (which is basically precedent) rather than something that is written down in a statute somewhere.
I would not be at all surprised to find that there are 1 or 2 cases from high-level courts that are seen as the classic statement of a public interest test, including no doubt a statement that legislation can only rule out a public interest defence expressly and not by implication (similar to a number of other common law principles, eg the right against self-incrimination - Parliament can override them, but it must show in every case that it explicitly decided to do so, or it will be presumed by the courts that Parliament meant to leave those basic fundamental principles alone).
I just can't be minded the cases/the statements of the principle right now. I would probably be able to do it more readily at work with the resources available there. But to be honest I don't know that I'm THAT keen to find the precise boundaries. All I know for certain is that (1) there exists a concept of a public interest defence, but (2) it's a darn sight narrower than many journalists seem to claim, because most of the cases I can ever remember seeing that refer to public interest have involved judges saying that it doesn't just mean interesting to the public.
[ 02. May 2012, 14:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All I know for certain is that (1) there exists a concept of a public interest defence, and (2) it's a darn sight narrower than many journalists seem to claim.
That's pretty much enough for me too.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
minded to find the cases. Right, that's it, off to bed for me. Too tired.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I've a suspicion that the courts have never ruled on the definition of 'public interest'. Certainly it's an element in prosecution decisions: the director can rule that a prosecution is not 'in the public interest'. Beyond that, I suspect it is going to be juries that dismiss cases despite overwhelming evidence that act to ensure it has a role in the system.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.
That's a very particular way of phrasing it. I would suggest that "obtaining information on citizens (i.e. not normally private ones) where there is good reason to believe that a matter of public interest is at stake" is not too far for journalists to go.
Watergate would be a good example, had illegal methods been necessary.
I think these instances should be very exceptional rather than the norm, should all be discussed with editors, and the journalists should be prepared to go to face the consequences of the law if their justification doesn't stack up afterwards.
Watergate was the press investigating the State not private citizens and there is a vast difference. I.stand by my assertions that the press has no right to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. That has a negativee impact on the public at large.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I've a suspicion that the courts have never ruled on the definition of 'public interest'. Certainly it's an element in prosecution decisions: the director can rule that a prosecution is not 'in the public interest'. Beyond that, I suspect it is going to be juries that dismiss cases despite overwhelming evidence that act to ensure it has a role in the system.
First case I hit in a search says you're wrong about juries. Judges decide.
It does, however, indicate that judges have discussed public interest mostly in terms of examples.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/47.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="public%20interest"
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
In our system judges are only supposed to make rulings about real examples, not hypothetical situations. So you do not know what the law is until it has been tried in court.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
