[LINK] grog gamut
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Oct 5 14:59:19 EST 2010
On 5/10/10 11:35 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> Just to clarify ...
> The media is exempt from law in Australia.
> Sorry, I should be more precise.
> The media is exempt from *some* laws, and privacy is one of them.
> Specifics below.
> I wasn't talking about legal rights. I was answering this question:
> At 7:13 +1100 5/10/10, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> To me, the key question in this debate is this: what moral force should
>> be given to the blogger's custom of anonymity? ...
> (4) An act done, or practice engaged in, by a media organisation
> is exempt for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(ee) [i.e. from the
> entire Privacy Act] if the act is done, or the practice is engaged in:
> (a) by the organisation in the course of journalism; and
> (b) at a time when the organisation is publicly committed to observe
> standards that:
> (i) deal with privacy in the context of the activities of a
> media organisation (whether or not the standards also deal with
> other matters); and
> (ii) have been published in writing by the organisation or a
> person or body representing a class of media organisations .
> [The Press Council, weak as it is, is sufficient to satisfy the
> 'self-regulation' provision of (b).]
Which makes it into a "nature and future of journalism" story!
However, Roger, that leaves us not much advanced. I'm grappling with
whether News actually did something "wrong", as distinct from something
we find distasteful or mean-spirited.
More information about the Link