Dateline show on sexual predators (releases?)

ernesto said:
Well, by this logic, I could make a movie in my house and not need releases from the actors?
Click to expand...

Well no, but like Barry S. said it gets complicated quickly. I was expanding on Barry G.'s comment that it was allowed because it was "news". Shooting news, I have never gotten a release and part of that has to do with freedom of the press, but another part is expectation of privacy.
 
What about an interpretation of news shown on a Television screen and included in a movie? Just kidding I guess everything has to be viewed in a case by case scenario. And that means its your/mine our job to make sure we are covered in whatever we do.
 
filmmaker24p said:
This is not entirely true...

Federal law trumps state law IF the federal law provides more protection than the state law. If the state law is stronger than the federal law then the federal law still applies, but any further protections proviede by the state law also apply.
Click to expand...


It's the opposite, state law can provide additional rights or protections but the minimum rights are what we find in the constitution and can not be diminished. Here we have two competing rights, the privacy of the individual v. the 1st amendment rights of the broadcast. From a federal constitution perspective you can not diminish the 1st amendment rights by increasing the privacy rights on the state level in these cases and therefore federal law will win. State's can increase rights as long as they do not conflict as they do here.
 
Last edited:
nbc docs aren't exactally cream of the crop.

I can't stand that MSNBC devotes like an hour for 5 days a week on a prision series that rehashes the same exploitative crapola night after night. not to get political, but you'd think they could devote their "investigative reporting" resources a little better at a time when the nation is at war.

and maybe it's just my screwed vantage point and the pedophile show really is a public service, but I believe that it does not belong on the air. not sure if I can best express why I feel that way, just something unbalanced on the profit/public service scale of things to me.

sorry for the rant.
 
lol wow what a timing for this post. I'm in a com law class, and I JUST finished writing a paper about a very similar issue before checking the boards. So basically this is an intrusion issue. In this case, all the plaintiff (the creepy stalker guys) have to prove is that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd say that since these people are willingly going to these places to do unlawful acts, and the intent of the recordings are to serve the public's interest by reporting the news, AND the recordings are not being used for criminal activities (they're just catching them BEFORE the criminal activities happen), then there's pretty much no chance for the plaintiff to defend his claim.
 
(they're just catching them BEFORE the criminal activities happen)
Click to expand...
not necessarily true ↑
The fact that they arrive at the specified residence at a specified time under the presumption that sexual acts with a minor will take place carries just as much legal weight as if the sick motherpoo pooers had gone through with the act...And just as icing on the cake, the "dummy" child asks the potential predator to bring something specific with them (IE a certain type of booze or pot) - which (99% of the time) is in fact brought.​
 
CallaghanFilms said:
not necessarily true ↑ The fact that they arrive at the specified residence at a specified time under the presumption that sexual acts with a minor will take place carries just as much legal weight as if the sick motherpoo pooers had gone through with the act...And just as icing on the cake, the "dummy" child asks the potential predator to bring something specific with them (IE a certain type of booze or pot) - which (99% of the time) is in fact brought.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If they weren't committing a crime, they wouldn't have the cops waiting to arrest them when they try to leave.
 
Daniel Skubal said:
In this case, all the plaintiff (the creepy stalker guys) have to prove is that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd say that since these people are willingly going to these places to do unlawful acts, and the intent of the recordings are to serve the public's interest by reporting the news, AND the recordings are not being used for criminal activities (they're just catching them BEFORE the criminal activities happen), then there's pretty much no chance for the plaintiff to defend his claim.
Click to expand...

Once accused of a crime your expectation of privacy is greatly diminished. It does not matter that these people were caught in the act on another persons property. They could be abusing a child in their own home, not even formally charged, and NBC could camp in front of their home with the cameras taking photos as the person left and arrived at their home. NBC would then become more concerned of defamation perhaps but even that has a lesser burden of defense when 1st Amendment issues are in play. The 1st amendment is too important to society, but unfortunately it can be used irresponsibly as a shield.

Does anyone remember Richard Jewell? Poor guy was hounded relentlessly by the press, all sorts of embarrassing irrelevant facts were released and his reputation ruined over the Atlanta Olympic Bomb. Turned out it was someone else and he was a hero.

I'm not a fan of gotcha journalism, but I think the predator story is an important one because I don't think many parents understand how dangerous these chat rooms are for their children. A child is not psychologically equipped to defend against some of these people.
 
I believe they shoot this in Virginia where it legal to record someone without them knowing. But also it being shot for a news program where the rights are different and they don't have to get releases for most things. I havn't seen the ones with the blurred images but I do remember a few where the guy runs out of the house full speed and I'm sure they don't stop to sign releases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top