Can a civilian publish private conversations?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ApolloRising

Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am writing a crime/thriller novel and I wanted to make sure it was accurate when it came to several legal aspects of the plot.

If a civilian is researching a crime with the intent to publish, do they have to disclose this information prior to an interview? Can they lie to get a person to talk about a crime? If information regarding a crime is shared, could it be published? The book takes place in Washington State, but I can change it if state laws interfere with the story.
 

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
Have you tried searching on "entrapment and journalism"?

It's a common thing, and people debate over its legitimacy.

For example--

On Sunday the News of the World ran a sensational exposéof a Pakistan cricket agent who had taken a payment of £150,000 for entry into a “betting scam”. The agent claimed that he was able to pre-arrange incidents – such as precisely timed “no-balls” – in a Test Match which could be the subject of bets. Although – contrary to the headlines – the match was not being “fixed” (the particular incidents having no appreciable effect on the result), it was clear that the “News of the World” had exposed significant malpractice. The predicted “no balls” were bowled by two of the teams leading players. As the paper put it – with just a hint of hyperbole –“In the most sensational sporting scandal ever, bowlers Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif delivered THREE blatant no-balls to order”.If true, the allegations in the “News of the World” articles reveal malpractice at the heart of Test cricket and perhaps a conspiracy to defraud the bookmakers. It is a good, old-fashioned scoop, based on a journalistic “set up”. As Jon Slattery points out in his blog today, this story is the lead in The Times and Guardian today as well as being followed up by all the major broadcasters. He describes it asA victory for the type of red top undercover “sting” journalism often frowned upon by the more serious newspapers and broadcasters.

and

Journalism in the public interest can be a dodgy business. Sometimes, when all else fails, to get their story reporters may have to use undercover techniques. They may even have to break the law. This week, on both sides of the Atlantic, two stories about the controversial use of subterfuge illustrate the thorny ethical issues at stake for journalists.In the United States, the Associated Press issued a stinging rebuke of the FBI when it was recently reported that an FBI agent impersonated an Associated Press journalists in 2007 with the goal of entrapping a suspect who made bomb threats.
The objective was to have the suspect click on a fake news link, at which point the FBI could upload software into the suspect’s computer. Through this undercover work, they were able to track the location and arrest the juvenile.
The Associated Press is understandably outraged. “In stealing our identity, the FBI tarnishes [AP’s] reputation, belittles the value of the free press rights enshrined in our Constitution and endangers AP journalists and other newsgatherers around the world,”AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt wrote in an open letter. “This deception corrodes the most fundamental tenet of a free press – our independence from government control and corollary responsibility to hold government accountable.”
He’s right, of course, but so is James Comly, The Director of the FBI,who defended the acts of the investigation. “That technique was proper and appropriate under Justice Department and F.B.I. guidelines at the time. Today, the use of such an unusual technique would probably require higher level approvals than in 2007, but it would still be lawful and, in a rare case, appropriate.”
Both sides argue passionately in defence of the public interest. Sometimes, whether it is for crime fighting, or for exposing corruption, when all other lines of inquiry have failed, it may be necessary to use subterfuge. But the cases in which this is truly justified are rare.
On the other hand there is the case, in London, of the “Fake Sheikh” which highlights the dangers of subterfuge without an ethical base to justify the means of deception. Reporter Mazher Mahmood would go undercover as Arab royalty for the purpose of setting up people to commit criminal acts and then wrote about the fallout in News Of The World. This is seen by many as simply entrapment; a journalist encouraging someone to break the law for the purposes of securing a story.
In one instance, Mahmoud in a bogus operation offered former Page 3 girl Emma Morgan a contract for a Middle East bikini calendar, but in fact it was a sting. He wanted to expose her as a drug dealer, so he hired a man to pressure Morgan to supply cocaine, and she fell victim to the operation.
“I was a fool, I was naive; to be foolish isn’t a crime, to be naive isn’t a crime, to do what he did is criminal,” said Morgan. “I haven’t had the career I should have had, I haven’t had the life I should have had. He’s a horrible, horrible man.”
Too often “infotainment” masks itself as hard-hitting news. Yet when undercover reporting lacks a genuine public interest it can ruin lives. Often the objective is simply sensationalism with the aim of selling more newspapers. But it is a shameful abuse of journalism; it damages public trust and undermines ethical journalists working hard to earn an honest living.
Clearly the use of subterfuge by journalists is controversial, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Getting into a country where the government is covering up human rights abuse or fighting a secret war sometimes means a reporter has to pretend to be someone else, usually a tourist, to avoid visa bans on media.
More directly, sometimes a journalist may pretend to be someone else – a public official or an interested party – to overcome state control of access to official information or to areas cordoned off from public view.
In South Africa, during the years of Apartheid, some courageous journalists secretly and illegally recorded meetings of army officers of the white regime, or pretended to be white racists to attend private political events to get access to vital information about the war against the black liberation movement.
Even journalists have been stung by other journalists using subterfuge. Some years ago in Germany the journalists of the tabloid Bild Zeitung were furious when investigative reporter Gunther Walraff, a specialist in cloak-and-dagger journalism, went undercover and joined their news staff just to expose the paper’s questionable journalistic techniques.
Sometimes, it might be appropriate for journalists and media to co-operate in law enforcement actions. But this may only be possible if journalists and media are consulted and their assistance is requested before their good name and reputation is used by others. Would the AP have agreed to allow the FBI to pretend to be on their staff in 2007? Probably not, but they should have been asked.
 

Pastelnudes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
353
Reaction score
65
I'm in the UK, but I'm pretty sure a civilian can do anything they want. They haven't signed up to anything. Lying is not a crime. Same for publishing.

The only issues I could foresee would be if a matter of national security was involved; for instance, if the journalists published info that endangered British forces.

Or if publishing it interfered with a police investigation, or helped a criminal in some way to get away with the crime eg paying them for the info (meaning they could afford to flee the country.)
 

Pastelnudes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
353
Reaction score
65
I see that lonestarlibrarian has given a much longer reply.

Yes, the tabloids in London do really extreme things. Hugh Grant, amongst many others (Paul McCartney was one) sued them for allegedly illegally tapping his phone.
 

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
4,524
Reaction score
6,203
Location
The Rottenest City on the Pacific Coast
Website
www.chasej.xyz
A civilian can publish whatever they want, that's what Twitter and blogs are for. However, if they want to publish something through a traditional book publisher or in a news paper, then their editors (and legal departments) might ask questions.

In America a journalist does not legally need to disclose their sources, especially for a crime. However they may be forced to by the courts if they are the only person who knows something. So if a criminal kidnapped some kids and magically left no evidence, told a journalist where the kids are, and then the criminal died, then the journalist can be legally required to disclose this info. Though generally being bullied by lawyers gets people to talk first.

If the person is a regular joe and has, like, an unsolved crimes blog or podcast they run as a hobby, then they have the right to publish whatever info they shared. The legality about whether they can post recorded audio/video is dependent on whether its a 1 or 2 party consent state, but if it's just text then anything goes. However, if a regular person talks to a criminal about a crime, learns some exclusive details of it, and then shares it with the public, well, I imagine that criminal isn't going to be very happy about it. So while there may be no legal repercussions (besides the police wanting to ask you questions), there may be consequences for "betraying" the criminal, which can be very dangerous depending on the sorts of crimes they're into.
 

ApolloRising

Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Have you tried searching on "entrapment and journalism"?

It's a common thing, and people debate over its legitimacy.

Thanks for sharing those articles. I have not searched for entrapment and journalism. I searched more around publication and recording laws, but did not find a definitive answer around lying to get answers. From what I could find, people can publish information, but they should expect a legal battle. I guess that would extend to lying, since information was not given through coercion.
 

ApolloRising

Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
If the person is a regular joe and has, like, an unsolved crimes blog or podcast they run as a hobby, then they have the right to publish whatever info they shared. The legality about whether they can post recorded audio/video is dependent on whether its a 1 or 2 party consent state, but if it's just text then anything goes. However, if a regular person talks to a criminal about a crime, learns some exclusive details of it, and then shares it with the public, well, I imagine that criminal isn't going to be very happy about it. So while there may be no legal repercussions (besides the police wanting to ask you questions), there may be consequences for "betraying" the criminal, which can be very dangerous depending on the sorts of crimes they're into.

Thank you for clarifying this issue. That is what I thought the laws were regarding the legality of publication, but I wanted to be sure I did not misunderstand what I read.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,577
Reaction score
6,402
Location
west coast, canada
Not a legal point of view, but I think there's another side of the coin - criminal shares important information (location of the body, or fate of the victim) and the civilian decides to keep that information to himself for a big reveal, or a teaser for an interview.

Information that the police could use, and more importantly, the victim's family would dearly love to know. I would hope, in that case, that even if it's not illegal, that the court of public opinion would destroy the civilian's career and the family sues him for every penny he has.

Probably nothing to do with your story, but it came to mind when I was considering the coulda, woulda, shoulda of keeping/revealing information.
 

Debbie V

Mentoring Myself and Others
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,138
Reaction score
290
Location
New York
Not a legal point of view, but I think there's another side of the coin - criminal shares important information (location of the body, or fate of the victim) and the civilian decides to keep that information to himself for a big reveal, or a teaser for an interview.

Information that the police could use, and more importantly, the victim's family would dearly love to know. I would hope, in that case, that even if it's not illegal, that the court of public opinion would destroy the civilian's career and the family sues him for every penny he has.

Probably nothing to do with your story, but it came to mind when I was considering the coulda, woulda, shoulda of keeping/revealing information.

This came to my mind too. If you know where those kidnapped kids are and you don't tell authorities, you may be viewed as aiding and abetting the kidnapper.

From a copyright perspective, the author of an email or letter owns the copyright, not the recipient: https://librarycopyright.net/forum/view/1171. Spoken words are different. So better to have a recording. Not that the person is likely to sue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.