Law is back and so am I

A new term, a new blog, a new beginning? No. Just the first two. I'm back at Winchester for my final year at university and an integral part of this course is the media law course. Do you remember my first year blogs on law with examples coming at you most weeks? Good, because I don't and that's why we're doing this refresher. The lecture this week was mainly an overview and that's exactly what I'm about to do in order to tell you what's in store for this blog over the coming weeks.

Often in law you'll find that things just don't seem right, this is because it's the law. Law isn't about what is right, the law is just the law; I can't help but feel Judge Dredd would approve (in cinemas now, I think). As journalists though we need to know a fair chunk of law, OK we aren't going to be as in depth or as comprehensive as a law student but be serious, those guys want to be lawyers. So what, as a journalist, are you expected to know?

Well you'll need a good grounding in all of the big three; defamation, contempt and privacy. If these terms are unfamiliar at the moment, don't worry, all will become clear over the more detailed blogs to come, (or you could have a look at my first year blogs which probably don't have the detail or the self deprecating humour you'll soon learn to love). So for defamation, you'll need to know the textbook tests for defamation, i.e. what is a defamatory statement? Seems simple but if you're not sure then a defamation blog will be on its way, right after we've had the lecture. Another test is can someone come after me? So insulting a big current celebrity might be a bit of a mistake but legally I can call Charlie Chaplin a Hitler look-a-like and despite the fact there's numerous legal (and factual) problems with it, they're both dead, what are they going to do. Lesson learned, always insult the dead. Now you'll also need to know the defences for defamation of which I'll go into more detail in a later blog; the defences for defamation are: justification, fair comment, privilege (in all its forms) and public interest. Personally I find public interest the most interesting as it is arguably the least clear cut. Justification just means it's true and privilege is to do with court reporting mostly but public interest covers a multitude of sins and that's why I'm very much looking forward to our lecture on defamation. If you do a fair and accurate report though, free of malice, which you should be doing anyway then defamation, libel, slander, shouldn't be a problem.

A very important thing for a journalist to understand is contempt. Not just any contempt though, for example I have a real contempt for people who wear Crocs but journalists don't need to understand that. They do need to understand contempt of court though, a law that unlike defamation will almost certainly see you in jail and most likely incur a heavy fine too. Again it's about understanding the tests. When do proceedings become active and all that jazz. Essentially, try to imagine explaining the law of contempt to your gran, it'd probably run a bit like this, "Contempt Gran, is when you annoy the court basically." And in its simplest terms that's what it is. OK so there are probably a few more technical terms than that but not identifying someone as the murderer before they've been charged but after they've been arrested is always a good one, as Chris Jefferies might tell you. What editors don't need is a journalist who needs a refresher lecture on contempt the day a bulletin goes out. You can't read a report to someone with better law knowledge than yourself and say, "Is that alright?" How should they know? They weren't there in court with you getting these notes down. What you really need to know though are the reporting restrictions in cases where there are children in court or (often the same case) where there are sexual offenders. Even if someone is charged in a sexual offence case there is a possibility that identifying them would also identify the defendant. It's also useful to know which courts do what? For example here in Winchester we're only one step down from the Old Bailey so could often get some rather juicy cases but if you're hanging around the magistrates court, don't expect the rules on reporting to be any different despite the change in severity of crimes dealt with.

Privacy is another important aspect of the law for any budding journalist, (and any flowered journalist for that matter, may have mixed my metaphors a bit). Claims of privacy against news corporations are increasing rapidly and could soon outstrip even defamation claims. We'll have a lecture on privacy soon where I'll go into a lot more depth but privacy isn't just about knowing articles 8 and 10 of the European Human Rights Act, article 8 concerning privacy and 10 concerning the protection of free speech. To run stories where privacy could be an issue always, with no exception, seek consent. Privacy is moving fast in legal terms so seeking consent could protect you in a confusing area of media law. It would also be a good idea as a journalist to understand the Freedom of Information act but that's for another day and another blog.

The most important thing that I've learnt in law though is that just because you have a defence for defamation, contempt, privacy or anything, it doesn't at all mean that you haven't broken the law. As a journalist you'll be breaking the law every day but if you know your law and can keep yourself protected you should be able to stay safe out there in the big scary world. Just keep your work, fast, accurate and fair.

Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.

P.S. I think it's also interesting to note that my course has its own fatal errors system which you can access here. If you don't follow those rules then there is nothing they can do to protect you and in fact the course will quite rightly feed you to the dogs.