Fleet Street Fox, a brilliantly clever journalist wrote an article in The Mirror about why Peaches Geldof needs to rethink her recently self-styled vigilante-esque approach to journalism. She explains what a long and arduous training “real” journalists have to endure “and now we have this thing called social media which we use to make friends, get laid, find information and bollock on about nothing much at all”. It also is, she notes that place where “news is made, spread, broken and repaired”.
She then quite rightly highlights all the issues anybody who wants to become a “citizen” journalist needs to be aware of – in other words all the legal implications of mentioning names; slander, libel, national security….that sort of thing.
All completely relevant and important I agree….but then she goes on to be very mean about Peaches Geldof, who I personally have a massive soft spot for and object to the fact she refers to her as “the talentless tattooed daughter of someone who did one decent song” (what does her tattoos have to do with anything?).
Anyway, the attack comes because Peaches criticised newspapers for not naming the two women convicted alongside Ian Watkins from the Lostprophets for allowing their babies to be sexually abused. So she found the names on an American website – because they have different laws over there and revealed them on Twitter. All manner of fuss has occurred – mainly because the ruling here is that lifetime anonymity is given to victims of sexual offences and by giving out the names of the mothers, the children are then identifiable.
But. Instead of just following the rules, shouldn’t we be looking at changing them where required?
Why should these women, who allowed their babies to be raped by a man have any special protection? Their children are babies for goodness sake – unbelievably horrific on every level, but maybe, just maybe, they will be too young to remember and could be given new identities and new happy lives (wishful thinking no doubt).
I’m with Peaches on this one – we might not all be journalists, but we are allowed to be enraged beyond belief by such a hideous crime and consequently, because quite frankly this tide of humanity called social media ‘ain’t going nowhere – laws are going to have to be re-considered and reconstructed to accommodate the breakdown in traditional lines of reporting – perhaps in line with America – news is made to be broken…..this is an evolving situation and debates will need to be had. A situation like this is the perfect example of why things need to change.
Go Peaches!
If you want to read the full article – it’s here:-http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/peaches-geldof-twitter-dont-mix-2864519
Sally
December 1, 2013The answer is: The law doesn’t protect criminals. The law protects children. In naming the parent, you effectively name the child. Online. Where that naming is potentially going to be visible for many, many years.
One of the things journalists learn about is the law as it applies to publications (and Twitter is indeed a publication). There’s something called jigsaw identification. This means journalists should avoid publishing ANY personal details around a case such as this that could be put together with other details in the public domain to form a jigsaw by which the victim can be identified. The name of the mother, obviously, is a ruddy great piece of the jigsaw. Kids like this don’t get new identities. They are generally put into care, and the law means they have access to their names and birth records as they get older – imagine that child Googling their name, or the name of their mother, as listed on their birth certificate. Imagine how THAT feels.
And THAT is why Peaches Geldof is an idiot who (in my view) deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And that’s also why, if you want to be a journalist and you want to publish things, you have a moral duty to understand the law, why it exists, and the proper way of challenging it if you disagree – because then maybe you won’t be the kind of person who potentially destroys a victim’s life with some words you thoughtlessly published in a fit of moral outrage.
Family Affairs
December 1, 2013I’m just not sure that in a case like this, protecting the children from the names of the parents is the right decision….that said, I completely accept that is the law and I’m not for a minute suggesting that Peaches should take the law into her own hands. I just objected to the personal attack on her – yes, she would have been incensed – more so as a new mother as we all are – what I’m saying is that in the digital space we are clearly going to have to take a different approach because this is going to happen more and more and we don’t want our courts filling up with these sort of issues where most people are well meaning and caring and didn’t mean any specific harm. Lx
Sally
December 1, 2013The law protects the children. And their family and friends, who have committed no crime. If a child can Google their names, so can their future friends, partners, employers – birth certificates are public record and the Internet is in permanent ink – that connection is there, stuck to their backs, for the rest of their lives. Why should victims be forced to adopt a new identity and sever ties with their entire family because of the criminal act of one parent? Is that fair or just? And is that public expense justifiable?
I think it’s worth noting the difference between moral mores and the law. The law exists to ensure criminals are punished. The law’s role isn’t to satisfy public appetite for shame or whatever (that’s why the judiciary in this country is independent from church and government).
So providing the perpetrator is punished, there’s no obligation for that perpetrator’s name to be made public, except where there’s a potential risk to the public from non-disclosure. I think it is absolutely right and proper that the needs of the victim are put ahead of a public desire to “shame” criminals further.
But if you don’t think that (and hey, you don’t have to agree) then the right thing to do is lobby your MP, to write, blog, Tweet about why you think the right of the general public to know the full facts of a case outweighs the right of the victim to privacy. The right thing to do is not to Tweet a stream of ill-informed, factually incorrect, potentially damaging and not to mention illegal messages to hundreds of thousands of people online.
Family Affairs
December 1, 2013I haven’t seen her tweets on the subject – didn’t know they were ill-informed and factually incorrect – although understand they are potentially damaging and illegal. Yes, agree there are other more correct routes of approach to change – there will be a lot of people who think the safety of others should also be considered alongside the children – so I do think there are forums to be had to start debating how we move forward in a digital age. Thanks for the comments! Love a good debate! Lx
RJW
May 1, 2014Spot on
Family Affairs
May 1, 2014Thank you and all the more so given what has happened to her. So sad. Lx
Liz
December 1, 2013Children who have been abused have the right to have their identities protected and they should have the right to be able to reclaim their identities once they become adults, should they choose to do so. But of course it’s not just the babies who need their identities protected; it’s other family members, including siblings, as well. As responsible citizens (journalists or not) we have to make that leap and think big picture: if we name x, what will the consequences be for w, y and z? As we’ve seen in recent cases, vigilantes will take revenge on those with the same names as known sex offenders without bothering to check facts first, often with catastrophic and tragic results. It’s naive to assume that it’s only the offenders who will be affected by having their identities made public. The law is the law and it’s there for a reason. And in any event, do we really want to go down the same route as the US?
Family Affairs
December 1, 2013I really don’t however see why women who treat their children in this way, parent or otherwise should be protected. If he is named, why aren’t they? Yes, I totally understand the needs of the children, but in a case like this I don’t think it is cut and dry – I always find the law frustrating when trying to curve it around a particular case and think maybe we should be able to be more flexible. Lx
Liz
December 1, 2013For the reasons I’ve stated above! The needs of the children affected by the case must be absolutely paramount.
Expat Mum
December 1, 2013My daughter is into her third year of studying Journalism at University in the States. I have spoken to a few UK journalists during this time who, in the course of the conversation, almost laughed at the fact that Journalism is a degree course. The fact is however, that not only are there ways to write news effectively and honestly, there are laws covering what you can and can’t do.
If Peaches wants to flout these laws (or maybe she didn’t even know about them), she can’t hide behind her moral outrage when she is threatened with the legal consequences. Ignorance is no defence in this case, – if she wants to play Journo, then she needs to educate herself on how it’s done, or what happens when you don’t follow the rules. And yes, if you don’t like the rules, get them changed, don’t just break them.
And I think she’s quite sweet too, BTW.)
Family Affairs
December 1, 2013I would be interested to get your daughter’s opinion – she is young enough to understand the digital world completely and from a US/UK vantage point – does she think the mother’s names should be released or not? Not obviously by a vigilante but by re-looking at how we deal with our laws. Lx
Expat Mum
December 2, 2013I will ask her but she’s just gone back to college after a long Thanksgiving weekend here and now has finals – NO time for anything apparently.
Family Affairs
December 2, 2013Yes please as I want to know what a young persons view is…..my daughter is totally on Peaches side! Lx
Expat Mum
December 2, 2013I have to say though Lu, you answered your own question -” the ruling here is that lifetime anonymity is given to victims of sexual offences and by giving out the names of the mothers, the children are then identifiable.”
Whether you like it or not, it’s a fact that these kids can’t help but be identified if the mothers’ names are made public. At present, there is no alternative unless they are all to be re-named, which isn’t going to happen. I don’t know what the mothers’ sentences are, but if they serve time or otherwise have a punishment, isn’t that enough? Why should the kids have to suffer by being publicly humiliated when they have already been abused, and on top oft that, lose their mothers?
If the response is public shaming, them let me assure you, as someone who has visited many women’s prisons, there is no bigger shame or punishment for most than being put in prison for crimes against your own children. Rest assured that they are getting their just desserts. Naming them in the Daily fail, to me, is like sticking them in the stocks. Again, no help to the kids – which have to remain the primary concern.
As far as the law – she is breaking the law in the UK. By going to a US web site to find the names, and then Tweeting them in the UK, she is still breaking US law. It’s no different from going to Amsterdam, buying legal weed and then bringing it home. Still illegal no matter where you bought it.
Once Peaches has thought this through thoroughly, if she still disagrees with it, then she is the perfect voice to try to get things changed.
Expat Mum
December 2, 2013UK law.
Family Affairs
December 2, 2013Thanks and do agree in principal – it’s all such a bloody sad mess though Lx