There is an interesting lawsuit in France by six survivors of the January attack by Islamic extremist Amedy Coulibaly at the Hyper Casher Jewish supermarket in Paris. The six people were mortified after learning that French media broadcasted their hiding location in a refrigerator while Coulibaly was looking for hostages and threatening to kill them all.
As a matter of journalistic ethics (and common sense) it was outrageous when media like the French 24-hour news channel BFMTV broadcast the location of the six people, including a three-year-old child and a one-month-old baby. I cannot imagine the level of callous and moronic judgment needed to broadcast such a fact when the gunman could have been listening.
However, there remains the question of whether there is a viable claim when in fact that six were not discovered. This lawsuit is the result of French laws allowing charges for endangering the lives of others by deliberately ignoring security protocols. It carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and 15,000-euro ($16,300) fine.
I cannot speak to the French law but in the United States, the plaintiffs would face serious challenges. First, they were not made aware of the betrayal of their location until after the event — undermining claims of emotional distress. Moreover, the emotional injuries from the encounter were due to the actions of a murderous fanatic, not the media.
In the end, I would be highly uncomfortable with a ruling against the media even though I find the actions of these journalists to reprehensible and thoughtless. Indeed, I would support the firing of those responsible for these broadcasts. Yet, the notion of liability for reporting public facts is a dangerous rollback on press freedom, particularly in France which has led Europe in attacks on both free speech and free press.
My goodness, didn’t these French reporters ever see the Die Hard (Deceder Tumescent in French???) movie where the stupid newsman told the bad guys who was killing them off, and then Hans grabbed McClane’s wife and held her hostage???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Put photos of the faces of the news media on air “stars” onto toilet paper and distribute on Easter Sunday.
Richard, thanks. I would be thrilled if, in addition to the civil suits, the government were to bring criminal charges against the media.
For French Jews, just imagine that everything you tell reporters will be handed directly to Al Jazeera and Hamas.
A good example is the Indiana Memories Pizza owner.
Mic in your face?
Smile, say nothing, keep working, ignore the reporter.
Jews, Christians, the anti-left, and the non-elite have to get used to the idea that the mainstream press organs are merely leftist operatives with bylines.
They aren’t here to report the news or to help you in any way.
Deal with them accordingly.
In fact, act as if they work for the other side, because they do.
Best to shut up and say nothing at all to reporters.
Steve H. Generally in this country, there is no civil liability to an individual who has not been harmed. Criminal charges may be based on the conduct, but civil liability (except in some unusual situations) is based on harm to the plaintiff.
There is danger in permitting government to determine what facts may be provided publicly. Regardless of one’s personal conclusion in this particular incident, it concerns me that so many who comment on this story here and elsewhere see no downside to instituting further limits on the right to share information. Many of the arguments against releasing information (including photographs) of what United States forces and contractors have done to prisoners in the Middle East are based on the concept that such information will result in harm. And yet, how do you hold your government accountable without such information.
So the “legal theory” says that since the six were not actually harmed by the media’s “blunder”, the media has no liability.
I’m not a lawyer but I think I know why “attempted murder” is a crime. “Your Honor, I shot at Timmy seven times and never hit him. Since he’s not dead, I have no liability.”
Bomb threats? Reckless endangerment? These are all crimes where no one has to be injured to find the (person) liable; but they all put others at risk. And the people at risk may not know at the time they were at risk; they may never know.
The public should picket the media stations until all those involved are fired.
Sounds like reckless endangerment. How many journalists did this? How many levels of French media thought it was a good idea before it made it to the air? I’m sure in the future all terrorists will make sure to tune in to their local media for any suggestions on how to kill more people.
Wouldn’t this be akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theatre? Or saying “burn it down” to a mob? Broadcasting on the air where someone is hiding from terrorist murderers is like saying, “Hey guys! There they are! Go kill them so we can catch it live!”
” Yet, the notion of liability for reporting public facts is a dangerous rollback on press freedom,”
Limiting the ability of the press to report facts detrimental to the safety of victims during real time when the event is actually taking place is dangerous roll back?
I don’t think so.
That is one press freedom I would gladly give up.
I say, not only take their money, make it a felony and put them in jail.
They should be sued. They were reckless, negligent, grossly negligent and down right irresponsible. These individuals survived but not thanks to the French media. I hope the plaintiffs win big.
I completely disagree with your conclusion. They should be sued, and I would argue criminally responsible. Maybe in this case the criminals were not listening to the report. But in the future? Convicting the media on this one, both financially and with jail time, would be a great example for future attempts at reporting and jeopardizing individuals in a crime scene.
I believe JT was trying to identify a legal theory of liability against the media and if there is a theory, what is the basis for damages. With respect to damages, all of the people hiding in the refrigerator appear to have survived and no suffered further harm as a result of the media blunder. With respect to a liability theory, how the media discovered the hiding place may be relevant. I doubt the police made a public announcement of that fact, so the media may not have re-broadcast information generally known to the public. If knowledge the hiding place was leaked by an unauthorized police person or overheard because the media were permitted to be within the investigation scene, you might conger up a legal duty on the part of the media not to disperse that information until everyone was safe. However, as JT points out, French law may have other bases of liability and, of course there is not First Amendment in France. In any regard the media deserve condemnation for a foolish act.
My god, isn’t it written somewhere, in the Constitution perhaps, that freedoms regardless of how they are used are sacred? You can’t curtail the freedom of the press even if it costs innocent lives. They were only doing their jobs. Ya pays your money, buys your ticket, and takes your chances. Get used to it.
The media can make the case the killers had no access to that particular media outlet and hence there was no danger. And of course, they DIDNT find them in the refrigatror (sic) so its hard to see the harm done. It was stupid thing to do, but I’m not clear enough on French law to say if there’s any legal liability.
Typical Double Standard of Law. Lawyers make a living by using the Law . Common sense is not tolerated. It will effect their income and position within the community at large.
The Media ( according to Law) should not be allowed to be Sued or litigated, because their lack of responsibility or accountability is acceptable. Really! Make them Exempt?
I think there is liability. And, I’m pretty conservative in this regard. You’re 0 for 2 this morning w/ this and the global warming post.
You have got to be kidding. You would support the press and it’s actions with a stupid caveat because of you direct affiliation with the Press. Really. Did common sense leave you or is that the Lawyer talking nonsense for his own selfish reasons? My oh My! What a double standard you live by. Destroy them but not me, I’m a Lawyer!