Several states have exit polling laws that prohibit journalists from interviewing voters at certain distances from polling stations. But a federal court ruled Washington`s election law unconstitutional because it was passed specifically to prevent the media from projecting the election result.11 A Minnesota judge struck down an exit polling law that prohibited journalists from asking voters about election issues as a restriction on the content of government business speech.12 Although the Florida Supreme Court stated: the state generally has the power to deny access to polling stations in order to prevent the Court from concluding that officials had not substantiated their claims that the exit poll had actually disrupted voting.13 Online publishers whose use of copyrighted works is not considered « fair use » have a different method of using parts of other people`s works. There are other copyright regimes, which are legal agreements on copyright, because they are more like private contractual arrangements in which authors voluntarily restrict their rights and allow greater use of copyrighted works. Thanks to the « Creative Commons » system, a creator can reserve certain rights and grant other rights to the users of the works. If a copyright has been infringed, the owner can sue the infringer in federal court and seek injunctive relief against future copyright infringement. The owner may compensate for actual damages, i.e. losses plus the profits of the infringer from the use of the copyrighted work. Or at any time before a court makes a final judgment, the owner may choose to receive a fixed amount of damages as defined in copyright law instead of actual damages. The amount of statutory damages can range from $200 to $150,000 depending on a court`s determination of several factors, including whether the breach was intentional. For 40 years, the Committee of Reporters has implemented this vision by providing legal advice to thousands of journalists and publishing publications to help them in their work. Federal and many state laws make it illegal to possess and, in particular, publish the contents of an illegal wiretap. Some states that allow recordings make it a crime to distribute or publish these otherwise legal recordings. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v.
Vopper in May 2001 that the media could not be held liable for damages under federal law for the publication or dissemination of information received by the media from a source that had conducted an illegal wiretap. The note referred to a proposal by a local trade union leader to commit acts of violence in the area. The Court held that any claim to privacy in the recorded information outweighed the public interest in a matter of serious public interest.3 The Court did not clarify whether disclosure by the media would be lawful in other circumstances. MRSC is a private, non-profit organization that serves local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State can use our free, personal Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions. The line between « fake news » and « real news » can seem terribly blurred. Can the justice system do anything about it? If your application is denied, insist that the agency representative indicate the specific legal exception that justifies the holdback. Most states require authorities to separate exempted information from unreleased documents. Therefore, you may receive a document in which some information has been redacted. Again, the authorities must justify such deletions by referring to certain exceptions in the Public Records Act or another law. If the agency offers to disclose some of the requested information, you can accept partial access and then resolve the remaining issues.
At the federal level, these laws apply only to authorities with collegial and multi-member leadership (e.g. commissions) and federal advisory councils. State laws apply to a variety of commissions, agencies, and boards. In general, transparency laws ensure public access to meetings only when a group`s quorum meets to discuss public business. Random social or ceremonial gatherings of government officials generally fall outside the scope of these laws. However, simply eating at a meeting does not make it a social gathering when the agency meets to discuss matters of public interest and make decisions.8 In the context of documentary, distributors and insurers increasingly expect producers to have signed performance statements for each subject of the film if that topic speaks in front of the camera or stands in front of the camera for more than one time. a fleeting moment or a crowd scene. Although it is generally not necessary from a legal point of view, these publications make it easier for filmmakers to purchase insurance and ensure distribution. As a result, filmmakers can save time and resources by getting approvals at the time of filming instead of having to find them later. The International Documentary Association provides more information on the benefits of obtaining publications here.
If one person agrees, there can be no invasion of privacy. However, the journalist must ensure that the subject has consented not only to the interview, but also to the publication or dissemination of the interview or photos. If minors or legally incapable persons are involved, the consent of a parent or guardian may be required. Written approval is essential for the use of images or private information in advertising or commercial contexts. The most important legal remedy against fake news is a defamation lawsuit. You can sue someone for defamation if they posted a false fact about you and you suffered harm as a result, such as job loss, decreased sales, or damaged reputation. If you are an ordinary and private person, you must also demonstrate that the media outlet was negligent (or negligent). In addition, the strength of a potential plaintiff`s case may influence a public`s decision whether or not to contest the summons.
