Accusing private figures of crime in print
I am the editor of a small college magazine. In an article that was recently submitted to me, as part of the story, the author named two people who ragged him (harassed him). I have sufficient proof to believe this is true. It is also important for the cause he argues for in his article that he names the two people.
Now, I have noticed that publications generally do not name private individuals. Even if they know for sure that they have committed the crime. Why is this the case?
(I am aware of the different defamation laws for private and public figures, but why not name people you know for sure have committed a crime?)
Edit: The author wants to file a formal complaint, and attach it with the article, to show that he takes complete responsibility for the accusations.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/37599. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Although you have the right to tell the truth, that is not defined by what you just know must be true. The truth must be verifiable. What proof do you have to publish, or to back up what you publish (like video)? The word of a victim that, conceivably, might be lying to you?
Professional news outlets, reporters and editors, are trained and consult lawyers to ensure they do not defame others.
Public Figures and Defamation: At least in the USA, 'public figures' including celebrities and politicians, have a higher bar to reach to prove defamation than a regular citizen does; and those public figures are the ones usually named by professional news outlets. Essentially the public figure must prove a statement is false, and must also prove their name was published with "reckless disregard for falsity", meaning the defamer knew or had evidence or had been told their publication was false, or should have known (could have easily found out, etc).
Private individuals (again USA, and the type of people you seem to want to out) that are defamed only need to prove that the defamer showed negligence in considering or confirming that a statement is true or false prior to publication, rather than the more stringent reckless disregard.
You can probably find your local laws on the Internet. I would consult your college's lawyer/attorney/counsel/solicitor before I published any names or other identifying information.
0 comment threads
If a newspaper/magazine were to receive information relating about a crime committed by a member of the public and are considering publishing this information, then the section on Privacy in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines would seem to be relevant.
Selected excerpts are:
The BBC respects privacy and does not infringe it without good reason, wherever in the world it is operating. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives protection to the privacy of individuals, and private information about them, but balances that with a broadcaster's right to freedom of expression.
-
Behaviour: There is less entitlement to privacy where an individual's behaviour is criminal or seriously anti-social.
-
Private behaviour, information, correspondence and conversation should not be brought into the public domain unless there is a public interest that outweighs the expectation of privacy. There is no single definition of public interest. It includes but is not confined to:
exposing or detecting crime
etc.
This seems to give grounds for publication of the material. That said, if the allegations of criminal behaviour are proved to be unfounded, then you could leave yourself or the magazine or the organisation (college) open to a charge of defamation. But you're already aware of this and so I won't elaborate.
Good luck.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37600. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads