Upload
hollie-gardner
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF: RELIGION SPEECH PRESS ASSEMBLY PETITION DOES NOT GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF: DEFAMATION INVASION OF PRIVACY ADS FOR ILLEGAL PRODUCTS OBSCENITY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SECURITY ISSUES DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
Citation preview
ETHICS AND LEGALITIESJOURNALISM
JOBS OF JOURNALISTS
• POLITICAL FUNCTION – WATCHDOG OF THE GOVERNMENT• ECONOMIC FUNCTION – BUSINESS, FARMING, INDUSTRIAL• SENTRY FUNCTION – POINTING OUT SOCIAL PROBLEMS• RECORD KEEPING FUNCTION – IMPORTANT NEWS• ENTERTAINMENT FUNCTION – DIVERSION• SOCIAL FUNCTION – GETS PEOPLE TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER• MARKETPLACE FUNCTION – PLACE FOR EXCHANGING IDEAS• AGENDA SETTING FUNCTION – WHAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
FIRST AMENDMENT• GUARANTEES FREEDOM
OF:• RELIGION• SPEECH• PRESS• ASSEMBLY• PETITION
• DOES NOT GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF:• DEFAMATION• INVASION OF PRIVACY• ADS FOR ILLEGAL
PRODUCTS• OBSCENITY• COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT• SECURITY ISSUES• DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL
ACTIVITIES
OBSCENITY
• REPRESENTATION OF SEXUAL ACTS, NORMAL OR PERVERTED, ACTUAL OR FAKE
• HARD TO DEFINE BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY STANDARDS• OBSCENE IS NOT THE SAME AS INDECENT.
• CUSS WORDS ARE INDECENT.
LIBEL
• WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT IS FALSE AND HARMS A PERSON’S REPUTATION OR BUSINESS
STARTING LAWLESS ACTION
• FOR EXAMPLE, SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER.• WHY IS THIS WRONG?• WHAT ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THIS MIGHT APPLY IN A SCHOOL?
FIGHTING WORDS
• ABUSIVE LANGUAGE PROVOKING SOMEONE TO VIOLENCE• “COME ON, HIT ME!” IS THE SAME AS THROWING THE FIRST PUNCH. SO ARE
INSULTS.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
• INTRUDING ON A PERSON’S PRIVATE LIFE• PAINTING A FALSE PICTURE• USING SOMEONE’S PHOTO IN AN AD TO SELL SOMETHING
DECEPTIVE ADS
• PURPOSELY MISLEADING PEOPLE• MAKING PROMISES YOU CAN’T DELIVER• IN SCHOOL – ADS FOR SOMETHING ILLEGAL FOR MINORS
THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY
• SPEECH OR PRESS THAT WOULD MAKE TROOPS JOBS HARDER OR WOULD REVEAL THE LOCATION OF SECRET AGENTS
• IN TIMES OF WAR, THIS LAW GETS STRICTER.
COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
• USING ANOTHER PERSON’S WORK AS YOUR OWN• COPYRIGHT IS A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET• YOU MUST CITE SOURCES
SCHOOL GROUND DISRUPTION
• ANY EXPRESSION THAT CAN CAUSE A DISRUPTION TO THE LEARNING PROCESS
• SCHOOL’S JOB IS TO EDUCATE STUDENTS. ALL OTHER FREEDOMS FAIL IN COMPARISON
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. KUHLMEIER
• PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL “CENSORED FROM THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER A SPECIAL TEEN ISSUE SECTION THAT INCLUDED ARTICLES ON TEEN PREGNANCY AND IMPACT OF DIVORCE ON STUDENTS THAT HE FOUND OBJECTIONABLE.”
• ARTICLE INCLUDED SEXUAL HISTORIES OF THE GIRLS INVOLVED. THE INFORMATION WAS NOT GRAPHIC, BUT WAS STILL INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOUNG READERS.
• INFORMATION WAS REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE AND A STUDENT STAFF MEMBER SUED.
• RULING WAS THAT SCHOOLS MUST WORK TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF STUDENTS. SCHOOL PRESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH INAPPROPRIATE ARTICLES.
SHIELD LAW
• DESIGNED TO PROTECT REPORTERS’ PRIVILEGE• REPORTERS CAN REFUSE TO TESTIFY ABOUT INFORMATION AND/OR
SOURCES OBTAINED DURING AN INTERVIEW OR NEWS GATHERING OR PUBLISHING PROCESS
NEW YORK TIMES VS. UNITED STATES
• IN 1971, DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, NYT OBTAINED A COPY OF AN INTERNAL DEFENSE REPORT DISCUSSING THE WAR. THE DOCUMENTS BECAME KNOWN AS THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
• THE US GOVERNMENT ISSUED AN INJUNCTION NOT ALLOWING THE NYT TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES.
• NYT SUED SAYING THAT IT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT.• SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF NYT
IMPORTANT VOCAB
• ETHICS – SYSTEM OF MORAL PRINCIPLES• PLAGIARISM – TAKING AND USING ANOTHER’S WRITINGS OR INVENTIONS AS YOUR OWN• LIBEL – WRITTEN DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, FALSE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN WRITING• SLANDER – SPOKEN FALSE STATEMENTS• PRIOR RESTRAINT – CENSORSHIP BANNING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL• CREDIBILITY – MUST BE ABLE TO BE BELIEVED AND TRUSTED• ACCURACY – CLOSE DOESN’T COUNT. NAMES, DATES, DETAILS MUST BE CORRECT• OBJECTIVITY – CANNOT PERMIT THEIR OWN OPINIONS TO BE PART OF THE STORY