(Updated) pls vote: Claudine Barreto, Raymart Santiago, et al vs. Ramon Tulfo, airport brawl: news media issues and media law issues

Caption from the Inquirer: “A Youtube video uploaded by user glamchiq00 shows actor Raymart Santiago and several others ganging up on Inquirer columnist Mon Tulfo at the NAIA Terminal 3. The brawl ensued after Tulfo took photos of Santiago’s wife, actress Claudine Barretto, berating a ground stewardess of a budget airline.” 

Blog admin’s note: The voting below is not a scientific survey/poll although it  reflects actual voting in the blog and is an added feature for viewers’ participation.

   

According to reports, the woman in hot-pink shirt in the video is movie star Claudine Barreto, the man in grey shirt is movie star Raymart Santiago, the man in hot-pink shirt is a friend of the couple, and the man in a light-brown khaki vest (sprawled on the floor) is Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo.

xxx xxx xxx

Blog admin’s notes: (only because it involves news media issues and media law issues)

        News media principles. Issues. On authentication and editorial judgment: This video has not been authenticated by any of the media organizations that used it (in the sense that the source is pseudonymous and not verified) but the fact that none of the parties alleged to be in the video denied it, or refuted it, and on the contrary went to great lengths explaining the context of the video,  and the fact that the NAIA (airport management) and Cebu Pacific also did not challenge it, and finally, the fact the general content of, the appearance of the place, and the situation depicted in the video, all coincide with verified reports, may be used to indirectly authenticate the video.  

     This means that as long as editors and news directors make an intelligent examination of the materials in the social media,  and establish its context, they can use these as secondary sources (the primary sources being persons  actually present in the incident).

    (This is an entire course; at least three courses. There are at least three to five courses in the department on this, undergrad and graduate, on substance (verification and authentication of online materials, examination of primary and secondary sources, etc.) and not just form. Enrol now! (er, este, next sem na. plugging.) Although we’re oversubscribed .

       News media values. Issues. There are  probably more newsworthy events that day such as the Iligan bombings and the murder of star witnesses against a carnapping syndicate, but the brawl, involving as it did famous movies stars and a well-known columnist,  caught on video, posted on YouTube, and becoming viral, made it more sensational than the rest of the news stories that day. The internet is a very visual medium and viewers are  more emotionally affected by moving images than by words in a straight news report. (this is not to say that you should always publish sensational stories — but that’s a whole lot of discussion that blog admin has a mouthful for. Editors/ news directors publish/ air what they think would be of interest to readers/ viewers; hopefully balancing it with stories that are of consequence to their lives.) 

       Media Law issues. When a famous movie star (Claudine Barreto) is arguing loudly (allegedly cursing and berating), a ground flight attendant, in a very public place (the airport counter) in front of very many people,  for their misplaced luggage, can this be documented and reported on by a reporter (Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo) who happened to be in the same place? Or is there an invasion of privacy with such documenting (photographing and/ or videoing) with intent of reporting?

    Are the movie actors justified in allegedly physically forcing the reporter to surrender the digicam/ video cam? Is the reporter justified in allegedly pushing away (or allegedly kicking) the movie actors? Is roughing up the reporter justifiable for being an annoyance?

       Right to privacy vs. the “Public Figure Doctrine”

     While the phrase “right to privacy” is not exactly so worded in the Bill of Rights, it is definitely and unmistakably found in the right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers, and effects (against unreasonable searches and seizures by government or its agents) and the inviolability of privacy of communication and correspondence (again, against unreasonable searches and seizures by government or its agents).

     This means that as against the awesome powers of government, your dwelling, personal belongings, documents, even your own physical body (the Constitution is being literal here), is protected against being searched and seized unreasonably by agents of the state, without probable cause (see exceptions: valid warrantless searches). Your letters, conversations, and other forms of communication cannot be intercepted, recorded, etc, without a court order.

      Our Civil Code also contains provisions that protect the right to privacy, such as:

“Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.”

     This means that you can sue, for damages,  individuals or persons who: 1. are peeping and looking into your house; 2.interfering with how you relate to your family; 3.gossiping about you (intriguing); 4.irritating/ annoying/ shaming you because of your religion, social status (impoverishedness, etc.), place of birth, physical appearance or “defect”, etc.  

      For letters:

     “Art. 723. Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court may authorize their publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice so requires.”

      This means that your letters and other private communication cannot be published without your permission unless there is a court order.

       As to your lifestory and public activities: See Lagunsad vs. Sotto, Vda de Gonzales. Your lifestory (which includes your family relations, romantic relations, etc.) cannot be depicted in a movie without your express permission. As to your public acitivities, see Ayer Productions vs. (RTC Judge) Capulong and Enrile, on a movie about the 1986 EDSA Uprising. Your public activities as a public official and public figure, constituting public interest, can be depicted in a movie without your permission.

     There is however a sub-set of rights in American jurisprudence that has not been applied by our courts, that is, the right of an individual to control the commercial  (i.e., in advertisements, consumer products, but not as news reports that involve newsworthy events)  exploitation of his/her face, body, or images arising from photos or videos of one’s face or body, and one’s name, identity, and likeness.

      This means that under this “sub-set” of rights, you have the right to stop another entity from using your face, name, identity, or an image in your likeness, for their own profit — unless you had agreed because,  maybe,  they would pay you. For example, your face/ name/ identity etc. cannot be used in T-shirts, posters, websites, mugs, billboards, etc for the purpose of profit (their profit) without your permission.

      Coming now to the airport brawl: Unfortunately, or fortunately, when a movie star engages in public behavior that attracts attention, in a very public place, maybe because of its loudness or the conflict it creates; and the concern involves public utilities such as airline service (a matter of public consequence), then it is not a private matter; it involves a conflict that is important to public welfare: These are: airline service, airport security, passenger welfare, public behavior of movie stars, etc., and therefore can be documented and reported on by reporters.

     (See principles of the “Public Figure Doctrine”; that is, a public figure, in order to maintain a libel suit or slander case, must show that the report arose from “actual malice”, subdivided into: 1.“reckless disregard for the truth”, or the report is an outright lie and was not based on any sources/ verified matter; 2.knowledge of falsity, or the report is a lie and the reporter knew it to be false; and 3.the reporter had motive for revenge based on personal history with the news subject.)

      The brawl incidents themselves, however, depending on the extent of injuries, involve provisions of the Revised Penal Code: slander by deed if the physical handling does not amount to an injury that incapacitates.  Slight,  to less slight,  to serious physical injuries if they result to an incapacity to perform the person’s usual work; etc.)

      Parenthetically and personally however i would draw a line when it comes to  “paparazzism”, even as to public figures — or stalking — or photographing or writing about nonpublic activities, or activities that do not involve public consequence, such as (examples of private activities even if in a semi-public place): quietly having a cozy dinner with a friend, or quietly working out in the gym, or quietly watching a movie, or quietly looking at shoes and bags in a store, etc. Everyone has the right not to be bothered or gossiped about or photographed or written about when engaged in non-public activities or those that do not involve public consequence. Up to now, there has been no law passed against stalking and other forms of harassment and interference, such that we have to rely on the general provisions of the Civil Code, RPC, etc. (There are bloggers, too, who are mindless enough to write about the non-public activities of private persons,  or upload  photos/ videos  of non-public activities of private persons without their permission. And of course, no matter how straightforward, fair, and professional you are, there will always be degenerates who will spread lies about you.)

     But as to this case, my advice is: Take on the big fish: That is, Cebu Pacific and NAIA management and security— (not anymore a media law issue).

     “Offloading for safety” is a pretext for a mistake, because  it is dependent on a foreseeable event. The length of the runway is known. The maximum weight that would allow take-off on that short runway is known. The combined weight of  all the passengers’ luggage had been determined. The risk is foreseeable and offloading could have been avoided by… informing the passengers beforehand, decreasing the allowed weight of check-in for everyone and not loading any more than what the length of the runway would allow for takeoff.  Or maybe… the luggage actually ended up in Guangzhou, and back, where the airline has a promo for P1,008.

      On the other hand, airport management and security are non-existent. There wasn’t  even a CCTV. According to airport management, there was a camera at the counter. It wasn’t working. It had not been working for sometime. (It was there for aesthetic purposes. As part of the interior decor.)

    Take on the big fish. 

Mubarak gov’t shuts down the Web & SMS in Egypt

Breaking news: Mubarak govt shuts down the internet & SMS in Egypt

(video from Russian TV made available to the public through Youtube, used here non-commercially and for academic purposes)

Amid street protests from hundreds of thousands calling for an end to the U.S.-backed 30-year authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian government shut down the internet and SMS (texting) nationwide.

a report from Associated Press:

“Egypt unplugs from Internet as protests loom; ‘unprecedented in Internet history’

By Jordan Robertson, AP Technology Writer, On Friday January 28, 2011, 1:29 am EST

“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — About a half-hour past midnight Friday morning in Egypt, the Internet went dead.

“Almost simultaneously, the handful of companies that pipe the Internet into and out of Egypt went dark as protesters were gearing up for a fresh round of demonstrations calling for the end of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule, experts said.

“Egypt has apparently done what many technologists thought was unthinkable for any country with a major Internet economy: It unplugged itself entirely from the Internet to try and silence dissent.

“Experts say it’s unlikely that what’s happened in Egypt could happen in the United States because the U.S. has numerous Internet providers and ways of connecting to the Internet. Coordinating a simultaneous shutdown would be a massive undertaking.

“ “It can’t happen here,” said Jim Cowie, the chief technology officer and a co-founder of Renesys, a network security firm in Manchester, N.H., that studies Internet disruptions. “How many people would you have to call to shut down the U.S. Internet? Hundreds, thousands maybe? We have enough Internet here that we can have our own Internet. If you cut it off, that leads to a philosophical question: Who got cut off from the Internet, us or the rest of the world?”

“In fact, there are few countries anywhere with all their central Internet connections in one place or so few places that they can be severed at the same time. But the idea of a single “kill switch” to turn the Internet on and off has seduced some American lawmakers, who have pushed for the power to shutter the Internet in a national emergency.

“The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called “almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.”

“The outage sets the stage for blowback from the international community and investors. It also sets a precedent for other countries grappling with paralyzing political protests — though censoring the Internet and tampering with traffic to quash protests is nothing new.

“China has long restricted what its people can see online and received renewed scrutiny for the practice when Internet search leader Google Inc. proclaimed a year ago that it would stop censoring its search results in China.

“In 2009, Iran disrupted Internet service to try to curb protests over disputed elections. And two years before that, Burma’s Internet was crippled when military leaders apparently took the drastic step of physically disconnecting primary communications links in major cities, a tactic that was foiled by activists armed with cell phones and satellite links.

“Computer experts say what sets Egypt’s action apart is that the entire country was disconnected in an apparently coordinated effort, and that all manner of devices are affected, from mobile phones to laptops. It seems, though, that satellite phones would not be affected.

“ “Iran never took down any significant portion of their Internet connection — they knew their economy and the markets are dependent on Internet activity,” Cowie said.

“When countries are merely blocking certain sites — like Twitter or Facebook — where protesters are coordinating demonstrations, as apparently happened at first in Eqypt, protesters can use “proxy” computers to circumvent the government censors. The proxies “anonymize” traffic and bounce it to computers in other countries that send it along to the restricted sites.

“But when there’s no Internet at all, proxies can’t work and online communication grinds to a halt.

“Renesys’ network sensors showed that Egypt’s four primary Internet providers — Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, Etisalat Misr — and all went dark at 12:34 a.m. Those companies shuttle all Internet traffic into and out of Egypt, though many people get their service through additional local providers with different names.

“Italy-based Seabone said no Internet traffic was going into or out of Egypt after 12:30 a.m. local time.

“ “There’s no way around this with a proxy,” Cowie said. “There is literally no route. It’s as if the entire country disappeared. You can tell I’m still kind of stunned.”

“The technical act of turning off the Internet can be fairly straightforward. It likely requires only a simple change to the instructions for the companies’ networking equipment.

“Craig Labovitz, chief scientist for Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Mass., security company, said that in countries such as Egypt — with a centralized government and a relatively small number of fiber-optic cables and other ways for the Internet to get piped in — the companies that own the technologies are typically under strict licenses from the government.

“ “It’s probably a phone call that goes out to half a dozen folks who enter a line on a router configuration file and hit return,” Labovitz said. “It’s like programming your TiVo — you have things that are set up and you delete one. It’s not high-level programming.”

“Twitter confirmed Tuesday that its service was being blocked in Egypt, and Facebook reported problems.

“ “Iran went through the same pattern,” Labovitz said. “Initially there was some level of filtering, and as things deteriorated, the plug was pulled. It looks like Egypt might be following a similar pattern.”

“The ease with which Egypt cut itself also means the country can control where the outages are targeted, experts said. So its military facilities, for example, can stay online while the Internet vanishes for everybody else.

“Experts said it was too early to tell which, if any, facilities still have connections in Egypt.

“Cowie said his firm is investigating clues that a small number of small networks might still be available.

“Meanwhile, a program Renesys uses that displays the percentage of each country that is connected to the Internet was showing a figure that he was still struggling to believe. Zero.”


The Buzz. a short (145-second) excerpt of d Top 2 stories. In a bit

YouTube is taking a long, long time to upload….or maybe it’s my connection. Interview, 120-second legal discussion; two stills, from a segment produced by “The Buzz”  (ABS-CBN Channel 2 ) today…it will be posted in a bit, i’m trying to entertain you…

Still from a segment produced by “The Buzz”, ABS-CBN, used here for academic discussion
Still from a segment produced by “The Buzz”, ABS-CBN, used here for academic discussion


Wait lang po for the 120-sec legal discussion…when my connection flickers, YouTube gets interrupted and gets into error. Sandali lang po, please don’t get impatient….in a little, little while