Quote:
Originally posted by lyrica9
actually, a rape victims name is sensitive information, especially in a case such as this, and if there is any chance of releasing their name having an effect such as in this case, then the paper is not supposed to.
they never have to identify someone like that.
|
That's true, but in most cases (I think there are now some rape shield laws in some states), this is a matter of professional ethics, not the law. That's a very big difference. Thankfully, most legitimate news organizations do try to protect the victim.
ok, we just covered this in my news reporting class, and the official standing on libel is that when you interview someone, and they ask for something, such as a name, to not be printed, that is a verbal contract that is binding, and if that information is printed, even though her name is factual, it is still considered libel.
I'd like to see some documentation on that. I can see it IF the reporter AGREES not to use the name and then does -- but I don't think that one person can form a contract without the other person agreeing.
Libel is extremely difficult to prove, and was made so by the framers of the laws in order to give some amount of freedom to the News Media -- and that was so the "Free Press" could/can act as a watchdog over government as well as other parts of society.
I'm not sure what this has to do with hauntings, but it's an interesting discussion.
Threaded Mode