|
Correspondents In The
Abortion War By Jonathan O'Toole As Abortion War
correspondents, the growing body of volunteer photojournalists who contribute
to the Christian Gallery News Service is filling a gaping journalistic vacuum
in the American press by connecting to the story of legalized abortion in the USA the basic seven questions posed
by every storyteller:
"Who," "What," "Where," "Why,"
"When," "How," and "To What Extent?" Because of the great
liberty afforded by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, photojournalism
in the United States has left a case law track record that provides Christian
Gallery reporters with the freedom to present themselves as lawful agents of
the press. Therefore, as a
responsible news service, Christian Gallery News encourages its reporters to
take the time to familiarize themselves with the case law history surrounding
the sometimes fuzzy line between the First Amendment and the ever-expanding
"right to privacy". First of all, I am not a
legal expert. This essay is not
intended to serve as a legal advice column, nor does it purport to offer a
professional or definitive legal analysis of the issues. Rather, its purpose is to shed some light
on a sampling of notable cases, and to draw attention to a growing list of resources
that may be helpful to Christian Gallery reporters as they research the case
history under their respective state constitutions. The Georgia Supreme
Court was the first American court to recognize the concept of a right to
privacy (in a case involving the use of an individual's photograph without
his permission in a newspaper advertisement*1*). In the balance between this
right and the freedom of the press in American case law, the "rule of
thumb" is that grassroots efforts at photojournalism (such as the
Christian Gallery News Service) are protected as long as the images captured
are directly related to the reported event, and are photographed from a
position that meets the legal definition of "public view," or a
"public forum". According to the First
Amendment Handbook, published online by the Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press*2*, "private property that is open to the public, such as
shopping malls, may be treated the same as public forums." But translating the
"rule of thumb" into a specific real-world context can be
complicated. Justice Byron White for
the U.S. Supreme Court noted that while the truth is a perfect defense in suits by public officials or public figures,
''[t]he Court has nevertheless carefully left open the question whether the
First and Fourteenth Amendments require that truth be recognized as a defense
in a defamatory action brought by a private person as distinguished from a
public official or public figure.'' So the U.S. Supreme
Court left open the possibility of actionable tort invasion of privacy by
journalists apart from the defense of truth.
In other words, even if your photojournalism is accurate, and doesn't
portray anyone in a false light, it is theoretically possible that you might be hauled into court for invasion of privacy, when your subject is not a public official or
a public figure. But there are some things you can do that will keep that theoretical possibility to a minimum, and, should worst come to worst, will make it virtually impossible for you to be found guilty of invading anyone's privacy. In order to avoid
invasion of privacy lawsuits, make sure the subjects of your reports are in public. Any sidewalk, street, or walkway open to the general public is by definition not a "private" space. People who are in public are generally understood to have no claim to privacy--especially if they are involved in a newsworthy event or issue, like abortion. But to avoid claims of harassment, avoid interaction with your subjects and don't
speak with them unless spoken to.
Don't hide your camera or yourself.
Don't caption your photos with words that could possibly be
misleading, or portray someone in a false light. Stand on the sidewalk or
curb in such a way that you do not block the public right of way. Carry a
tape recorder and when approached or otherwise accosted, announce, "this
conversation is being recorded."
Avoid going alone. In fact, if at all possible, gather your news reports at times when other protest or counseling activities are taking place outside the places of abortion. Go to the library and
research your state's tort and statutory laws regarding the right to
privacy. Use the Internet to research
state case law history [see footnotes].
Remember, the liberties we fail to exercise can disappear with
disuse. Finally, never forget this, nor let anyone convince you otherwise: the violent
slaughter of defenseless children of God is newsworthy if any event in the universe is newsworthy. The failure of the news media in the United States of America to accurately cover the Abortion War is one of the main reasons this War has gone on so long and has produced such multitudes of casualties. With your entry into the War as a Correspondent, you will become a force for life like few among us. The authors of the Constitution had
ordinary citizens like us in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. So identify yourself as a freelance
photojournalist, and above all, draw the First Amendment like a gun and
shoot! "...photojournalists,
amateur photographers and just plain citizens all enjoy equal protection
under the First Amendment. What this means in practical terms is that the
most under equipped video news hound to the most highly paid prize winning
photojournalist enjoy an equivalent First Amendment right to photograph
newsworthy events. Under the law, everyone's photographic newsgathering
efforts are equally protected by the First Amendment." - Prof. Michael D. Sherer, University of Nebraska
at Omaha*3* FOOTNOTES To look up federal and state case law, the best
online resource the author has found is Findlaw.com, and their case law
search engine: http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/index.html Following are excerpts from two notable U.S.
Supreme Court decisions which set important precedents for the balance
between freedom of the press and the right to privacy: A. In COX BROADCASTING CORP. V. COHN, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that "...the First and Fourteenth Amendments bars
Georgia from making appellants' broadcast the basis of civil liability in a
cause of action for invasion of privacy that penalizes pure expression - the
content of a publication."*4*
The Court stressed that the content was open to "public inspection,"
and therefore privileged under the First Amendment: "The interests of privacy fade when the information
involved already appears on public record, especially when viewed in terms of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments and in light of the public interest in a
vigorous press." B. In OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT,
the Supreme Court cited COX BROADCASTING CORP. V. COHN with specific
reference to photojournalism: "A
state court's pretrial order enjoining the news media from publishing the
name or photograph of an 11-year-old boy in connection with a pending
juvenile proceeding charging the boy with delinquency by second-degree murder
held to abridge the freedom of the press in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.*5*" *1* See Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance
Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905). *2* The
First Amendment Handbook at http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/, published by: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1910 Arlington, Va. 22209 (703) 807-2100 rcfp@rcfp.org *3* "No Pictures Please, It's the Law," by Prof. Michael D. Sherer,
University of Nebraska at Omaha; Copyright 1995 National Press Photographers
Association
*4* COX BROADCASTING CORP. v. COHN, 420 U.S. 469
(1975) *5* OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT, 430
U.S. 308 (1977) |