4 ms·
I think this is one of the parts in law where you very much would need a specialized lawyer to begin to even grasp the law. There are too many confounding issue
by rjf72 8y ago
I think this is one of the parts in law where you very much would need a specialized lawyer to begin to even grasp the law. There are too many confounding issues here. For instance I expect the paper will have some argument in the fact that publishing these sort of things is part of their regular work and benefits the 'public good'. How does this interact with the laws and what precedent has been set?
If you take these laws at completely face value many things such as out of court monetary settlements would be bordering on illegal which is certainly not the case.
- tw04 8y agoIf publishing them is in the public good, then publish it. The second you reach out to the subject and threaten to publish unless they lie for you, that defense falls apart.
- gamblor956 8y agoWhat matters is whether AMI actually has the undisputed right to publish them, i.e., such as if the pictures are a clear matter of the public interest. If, however, AMI's actions could be tortious (or criminal), then threatening to publish can be blackmail depending on what they specifically threaten and the quid pro quo. If AMI's actions would be tortious, then threatening to publish is blackmail regardless of what they specifically threaten or the quid pro quo.