Spears vs. Freedom of the Press

[Head Janitor]

I don't think Britney Spears is an actual news item... but this case brings up some interesting issues.

Lawyers for Britney Spears won a British court injunction Thursday designed to prevent publication of stories about her recent stay in rehab.
The injunction bars unidentified "person or persons ... who has/have been leaking information about Ms. Spears' time in a rehabilitation clinic from further disclosures invading her privacy," said Schillings, the 25-year-old pop star's London law firm.
The injunction was issued at the High Court by Judge Charles Gray.
Spears left Promises Malibu Alcohol and Drug Rehab Treatment Facility in California "after successfully completing their program," her manager, Larry Rudolph, said this week. He asked that Spears' privacy be respected.
She entered the facility Feb. 22 after a bout of bizarre behavior that included shaving her head, getting tiny lips tattooed on her wrist and beating a car with an umbrella.
Schillings said Spears planned to ask the court to force media outlets that had printed stories about her time in rehab to reveal their sources so that the source of the leak could be identified "and action can be taken against him/her."
Spears' activities have been fodder for weekly magazines and entertainment Web sites since she filed for divorce from aspiring rapper Kevin Federline in November, citing irreconcilable differences
She hasn't disclosed why she sought treatment at Promises, which offers detox, counseling and 12-step programs. A 30-day stay at the Mediterranean-style villa in the Santa Monica Mountains costs $48,000. What do you think about this case?
Would it fly here?
Does a woman who bares her vagina and shaves her head in public have a right to privacy?

[amp]

I'm guessing since this was a British court that it only applies to Britian. I just wish she'd join Anna Nicole in the big trailer park in the sky.

[Tripe Face]

No, it wouldn't fly here in the USA.

We have a written constitution. In it we have "Freedom of the Press"

Brits have no such document. Their laws a VERY strict in regards to the media.

However, in this modern era of the internet, it is BRITISH standards of things like libel that lawyers for major American news outlets often worry about.

If you do a story that might end up on your website, and that website can be seen in Britian, some media lawyers say you could be sued in BRITISH court, even if you've never even BEEN there.

I've changed at least one story I've worked on for my network because of that very concern.

[Head Janitor]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
No, it wouldn't fly here in the USA.

We have a written constitution. In it we have "Freedom of the Press"

Brits have no such document. Their laws a VERY strict in regards to the media.

However, in this modern era of the internet, it is BRITISH standards of things like libel that lawyers for major American news outlets often worry about.

If you do a story that might end up on your website, and that website can be seen in Britian, some media lawyers say you could be sued in BRITISH court, even if you've never even BEEN there.

I've changed at least one story I've worked on for my network because of that very concern.That intrigues me. If the story never aired in Britian, and you aren't a subject of the United Kingdom, how exactly are they going to bring you to court? Send a couple Bobbies to your front door and ask you nicely to visit London? If they try you in absentia, how will they enforce a fine or prison time?

[Lazlo Toth]

interesting concept. Would the same be true for over the air broadcast if Canada had strict laws and people there could see US broadcasts?

[The Thrill]

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> aspiring rapper Kevin Federline </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked016.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked016.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked016.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked016.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked016.gif

[DoneThatToo]

Does a woman who bares her vagina and shaves her head in public have a right to privacy?

Well the answer to this is easy. 'Yes'

That's like saying that because a girl had sex with your friend makes it alright for you to force her to have sex with you.

[ March 22, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: DoneThatToo ]

[Spike]

The real answer is yes, it could happen here regardless of our Constitution, because this is not a "freedom of the press" issue. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they're reading.

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
The injunction bars unidentified "person or persons ... who has/have been leaking information about Ms. Spears' time in a rehabilitation clinic from further disclosures invading her privacy," said Schillings, the 25-year-old pop star's London law firm.Notice that there's nothing in that to stop papers from publishing information about her if they get it. It's not a gag order on the press. It's not a prior restraint. It's not an injunction against publishing information they've already gathered.

The injunction is against someone close to her who has been feeding that information to reporters in violation of her privacy. It doesn't prohibit the newspapers from publishing information they may get from the very same informant in the future. If he continues to pass along information, he'll be in contempt of court, but the newspapers will still be able to publish it.

People get their panties all wadded up over the silliest things.

[ March 22, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[Hipster Doofus]

If you consider her stay in rehab a medical condition, perhaps there is some sort of doctor/patient confidentiality that has been breached.

[Head Janitor]

Originally posted by Spike:
The real answer is yes, it could happen here regardless of our Constitution, because this is not a "freedom of the press" issue. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they're reading.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Head Janitor:
The injunction bars unidentified "person or persons ... who has/have been leaking information about Ms. Spears' time in a rehabilitation clinic from further disclosures invading her privacy," said Schillings, the 25-year-old pop star's London law firm.Notice that there's nothing in that to stop papers from publishing information about her if they get it. It's not a gag order on the press. It's not a prior restraint. It's not an injunction against publishing information they've already gathered.

The injunction is against someone close to her who has been feeding that information to reporters in violation of her privacy. It doesn't prohibit the newspapers from publishing information they may get from the very same informant in the future. If he continues to pass along information, he'll be in contempt of court, but the newspapers will still be able to publish it.

People get their panties all wadded up over the silliest things.</font>[/QUOTE]Well Spike, did you read this section of the article?
Schillings said Spears planned to ask the court to force media outlets that had printed stories about her time in rehab to reveal their sources so that the source of the leak could be identified "and action can be taken against him/her." There are many who feel that this would violate the Freedom of the Press.. trying to force a reporter to reveal a source.

Not that it matters, but it is possible to post an opinion without insulting someone. You should try it sometime.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripe Face:
No, it wouldn't fly here in the USA.

We have a written constitution. In it we have "Freedom of the Press"

Brits have no such document. Their laws a VERY strict in regards to the media.

However, in this modern era of the internet, it is BRITISH standards of things like libel that lawyers for major American news outlets often worry about.

If you do a story that might end up on your website, and that website can be seen in Britian, some media lawyers say you could be sued in BRITISH court, even if you've never even BEEN there.

I've changed at least one story I've worked on for my network because of that very concern.That intrigues me. If the story never aired in Britian, and you aren't a subject of the United Kingdom, how exactly are they going to bring you to court? Send a couple Bobbies to your front door and ask you nicely to visit London? If they try you in absentia, how will they enforce a fine or prison time?</font>[/QUOTE]I work for a network with an outlet that airs in the UK and the stories I produce often air there.

And no they wouldn't send bobbies over here to get me (though as an Irishman I'd be honor bound to throw a bomb at them) they could however ***** with my network's people who work there.

[ March 22, 2007, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Tripe Face ]

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Spike:


People get their panties all wadded up over the silliest things.In Brit's case you are speaking figuratively of course!

[Spike]

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
Well Spike, did you read this section of the article?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Schillings said Spears planned to ask the court to force media outlets that had printed stories about her time in rehab to reveal their sources so that the source of the leak could be identified "and action can be taken against him/her." There are many who feel that this would violate the Freedom of the Press.. trying to force a reporter to reveal a source.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I did read that section. Did you?

Does it say a judge forced media outlets to name their sources? No. It says Britney's lawyer planned to ask a judge to do that. Asking a judge to do something doesn't mean it's going to be done. There's a really hot girl walking down the sidewalk outside my window right now. I could ask a judge to make her come up here and have sex with me, but that doesn't mean it'll happen.

If the judge does grant Britney's request, THEN we'll have something to talk about. Until then, this is not an issue.

And as for my tone, it's difficult to respond with sweetness and light to people who jump to wild unsupported conclusions or simply fail to read what they're talking about before commenting. I really do wish people would pay more attention, because it's difficult to hold a discussion with someone when you're having to teach them the subject matter at hand.

[Head Janitor]

After re-reading my original thread, I fail to see where I asked you to educate me or made 'wild unsupported conclusions.'

These are the questions I posed:
What do you think about this case?
Would it fly here?
Does a woman who bares her vagina and shaves her head in public have a right to privacy?

If this is your idea of wild, I bet you drive all the girls/guys crazy on Friday night.

As for waiting until the judge grants the attorney request for source information, why? Is it really a stretch to believe he will grant it? He's already barred anyone(doctors, orderlies, patients) from talking about what they saw.

I'm not endorsing an attack London, just asking for opinions. I am sorry if that insults your sensibilities.

[ewink]

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
After re-reading my original thread, I fail to see where I asked you to educate me or made 'wild unsupported conclusions.'

These are the questions I posed:
What do you think about this case?All Well and good for the UK, but like others have said, it would never work here. Personally I think it's sad this much attention is being paid to her regardless.

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
Would it fly here?Nope! The rules are not the same when it comes to a public figure, part of which was established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). While that case was about libel in particular, IMHO it sets a precident that public figures /= regular people.

Originally posted by Head Janitor:
Does a woman who bares her vagina and shaves her head in public have a right to privacy? Yes. But not the same as someone who doesn't.

Of course these are all my laymans opinions!

[Spike]

Originally posted by ewink:
All Well and good for the UK, but like others have said, it would never work here. Except that those others are wrong. Everything that has happened so far in this case in the UK could and would happen here.

Originally posted by ewink:
Nope! The rules are not the same when it comes to a public figure, part of which was established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). While that case was about libel in particular, IMHO it sets a precident that public figures /= regular people.
Times v. Sullivan has nothing to do with this, because it dealt with the press. No injunction has been made against members of the press in this case.