 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
|
U
S A 22. LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT WOULD AFFECT
THE PRESS A movement is afoot in many states to pass legislation known
as the Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation Act, which
is aimed at encouraging newspapers to print corrections and limiting
libel suits. Under the proposed law, if a newspaper printed a correction,
its exposure in a libel suit would be limited to actual damages. On a different front, state and federal legislatures have begun
reforming tort legislation, scaling back the kind of non-economic
and punitive damages that plaintiffs could recover. Such legislation
will further protect newspapers and television stations in the event
they are sued for defamation. Several bills known as paparazzi bills have been presented
this year that would punish reporters persistently pursuing photographic
images of individuals under certain circumstances. The ?Protection from Personal Intrusion Act? would make it
a federal criminal offense to persistently physically follow or
chase a victim in circumstances where the victim has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and has taken reasonable steps to insure
that privacy, for the purpose of capturing by a camera or sound
recording instrument of any type a visual image, sound recording
or other physical impression of the victim for profit. A conviction
for such harassment could lead to a prison sentence of not less
than 20 years if the person being pursued dies as a result of the
chase, not less than five years if the person is seriously injured,
or no more than a year if nobody is hurt. A second paparazzi bill, ?The Privacy Protection Act of 1998?,
was presented which would allow prosecution of anyone who persistently
follows or chases any individual? for the purpose of obtaining a
visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression? [if]
the image, recording, or impression was intended to be, or was in
fact, sold, published or transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce.
This bill is limited to attempts to obtain an image, recording or
other impression for commercial purposes, and it requires that the
individual has a reasonable fear that death or bodily injury will
result from the following or chasing. It also requires that the
victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the harassment
occurred, and that the person had taken reasonable steps to insure
that privacy (H.R. 2448, H.R. 3224). In the Senate, there is another anti-paparazzi bill which is
broader than similar bills introduced in the House. The bill not
only proposes criminal penalties for harassment but expands the
definition of trespassing to include zoom lenses and other enhancement
devices used to capture activity on private property without the
photographer physically trespassing. Among others, the bill would
allow federal lawsuits against people who trespass on private property
in order to obtain a photo or recording for commercial purposes.
Even if the person taking the photo or making the recording never
actually physically trespasses, he or she may still be sued if a
personal or family activity is captured through the use of a visual
or auditory enhancement device (S. 2103).
|
questions
or comments? | |
