The fictional scenario telling Gideon Goal’s story features a number of ethical and legal issues. Below, the major of those issues will be addressed and discussed in terms of ethical and legislative norms that are important in connection with them.
Gideon Goal, a famous footballer, is invited by the manager of a brand new hotel to stay for a weekend as a celebrity guest. He posts a photo on Facebook of himself sitting in his opulent bedroom at the hotel. Later that night, he does a TV interview for Channel X TV in the hotel restaurant. The cameraman accidentally knocks into a fish tank in the restaurant and cracks it. Gideon Goal slips on a patch of water that leaks out from a fish tank. He injures his back and is unable to play football for two weeks. His club seeks compensation.
Public liability and/or contested liability
The injured party is Gideon Goal, and the hotel is a perpetrator (Markovits 2011). As the hotel employee did not clean up the water out of a fish tank that resulted in an accident, the hotel was to be responsible for that situation. In addition, the hotel employees could be guilty of breaking the rules of safe table setting that resulted in an accident with a fish tank. An example of such cases is Samaan vs Victoria Fried Chicken Pty Ltd 2011, Symons v Cedar College Inc. 2010, Richardson vs. Mt Druitt Workers Club 2010, De Marco vs Italo-Australian Club (ACT) Ltd 2011 (Markovits 2011). The situation in Goal’s case is regulated by Australian Public Liability Law.
Three months later, the hotel launches an advertising campaign headlined “These rooms kick Goals”, and prominently featured the Facebook photo of Gideon Goal. Gideon Goal complains, saying he didn’t know the photo was going to be used and demanding the hotel pays him for being featured in the advertising campaign. The hotel refuses, saying that this was the understanding in offering him the room for the weekend.
Privacy and consent as an ethical issue
There is no signed agreement stating that Gideon Goal permits the hotel using his private images made in the hotel and posted on his Facebook account. In connection with this, a few more questions are important: does the image belong to Facebook? Whether any organization has a right to use the images that people post on their Facebook accounts? In this situation, legal regulation measures should be implemented to punish the hotel management for unfair strategies in their work. Some of the possible measures that could be implemented here were a fine, and a prohibition to use such illegally produced advertisements (Kenyon 2012). The examples of cases similar to this one are the case of Lenah Game Meats vs. ABC 2001, Jane Dow vs. ABS 2002, and Byrne vs. Australian Airlines 2006.
A year later, Gideon Goal writes his memoirs for an Australian publisher. A freelance journalist, Jack Hack, hears from a source that the book is going to be “explosive”. He contracts a private investigator who hacks into the voicemail of Gideon Goal’s mobile phone to see if he can gain any hints about the contents of the book.
Major breach of privacy (Rolph, Vitins & Banniste 2010)
In this situation, there is an important issue: is it legal to hack phones? Here, the actions of the freelance journalist can be qualified neither as ethical nor as legal. He resorted to the use of the method that would definitely help him find out something lurid, but such method would by all means lead to undesirable consequences for him. Such actions break the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the surveillance law, the Interception of telecommunications act, and the laws protecting privacy (Pearson 2011). The journalist could utilize the sum of money used for a private investigator’s service to pay Goal for an exclusive interview with him. Of course, this could be more expensive, but it would protect the journalist from any undesirable consequence of illegal actions. Cases similar to this are Plaintiff M47-2012 vs. Director General of Security HCA 46 (2012), Dowson vs. JT International SA (2012), Clark vs. Commonwealth of Australia HCA 43 (2012).
From the messages, he learns that in Chapter 2, Gideon Goal will reveal that two of his team-mates are in a homosexual relationship, but wish to keep it private.
Defamation
Gideon Goal’s actions are unethical because private relations of his team mates are their private matter, and no one has a right to discuss someone’s private relations publicly ( Cojuharenco, Shteynberg, Gelfand, M, & Schminke, M 2012). In addition, the fact that these players have such relations is not supported by any evidences; thus, it may be a case of obloquy. In any circumstances, such conduct by Gideon Goal can be qualified as defamation (Albrecht, Borger, Groshong, Kissinger, Larsen, Leatherbury, Mandell, Mast, Horn, Walker, Williams & Zansberg 2011). The cases similar to this one are Lloyd-Jones vs. Allen [2012] NSWSCA 230, Putland vs. Nowak [2012] QCA 121, Prendergast vs. Roberts [2012] QSC 144, Holt vs.TCN Channel Nine P/L [2012] NSWSC 770, Baglow vs. Smith [2012] ONCA 407, Lucire vs. Parmegiani [2012] NSWCA 86, and David vs. Abdishou [2012] NSWCA 109. The laws regulating such situation are the Communications Decency Act 1992, and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
Jack Hack poses as a Worksafe inspector to gain entry to the publisher’s factory and manages to take a copy of the book which is being prepared for publication.
Stealing, trespass, impersonation fraud
The situation has a number of serious of violations both legal and ethical. Such issues are important in connection with it: does any individual have a right to impersonate a worksite inspector? Can stealing be a method that journalists may use in their activity? Where is a rational border that journalists may not infringe in their activity? Hack’s actions are illegal, and he should be punished criminally for such unlawful tactics in his journalist work. Because of a bad fame of such people as Hack, the profession of a journalist is one of the most unpopular professions in society. Therefore, legal measures should be implemented to protect victims from the actions of this kind. Hack is a free person in his professional activity, but this does not offer him a chance to act in this way. If he saw a potentially interesting material in Goal’s book, then he could find the other ways of acquiring more information about it (Hirst & Patching 2007). For example, an interview with Goal could be one of those legal ways. The cases illustrating this situation are Duncan vs. Ellis [1916] VLR 325, Moffatt vs. Hassett [1907] VLR 515, Gabriel vs. Lobban [1976] VR 689, Cody vs. J H Nelson Pty Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 629 ; and Aldridge vs. Marks (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 69.
The Daily Trumpet newspaper contracts with the publisher for exclusive serialisation of excerpts from the book. Gideon Goal also agrees with the newspaper to invite the players featured in Chapter 2 to a hotel in Melbourne, where the newspaper has installed secret video equipment.
Surveillance under Telecommunications Act (Schwartz 2009)
Here, the following issues are important: Does Gideon know about the camera? Can the representatives of the newspaper legally record? How the surveillance law is connected with this situation? The conduct of the representatives of the newspaper is not acceptable because they do not have a permission to film this dialogue unless such permission is received from all of the people present in the meeting (Rolph 2010). The instalment of a secret video camera is both unethical and illegal in this situation. The laws that can be implemented in this situation are The Privacy Act 1988, The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Information Privacy Principles 1991, and The Telecommunications Act 1997.The cases similar to this one are the Director General, Department of Education and Training vs. MT [2006] NSWCA 270,
Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192, and The Ombudsman v Koopman & Anor [2003] NSWCA 277.
When they arrive, Goal begins a discussion with the players about whether they would be willing to join the public campaign for equal rights for same sex couples. The players decline.
Defamation
Goal is aware of the fact that the newspaper may have an access to this discussion, and thus, he is guilty in defamation.
The following day, Jack Hack releases the entire contents of the book on a website he has set up called GideonGoalsbook.com.
Copyright, damages if sued by newspaper for loss of revenue
Jack Hack has no rights to publish this book; what he does is the infringement of copyrights (Burrell 2006). The situation is similar to the state of affairs in the Gutnik case when the defamation material was illegally published in the Internet (Pearson 2012). The court decision in this case was to prohibit any actions directed to illegal publishing defamation information in the Internet. In the cases such as this one, the defamation occurs at the place where the discrediting material is published. The cases that have similarities with this situation are Dellapatrona vs. DPP (No 2) (1995) 38 NSWLR 257; (1995) 132 ALR 307 ; (1995) 83 A Crim R 208 Dellapatrona vs. DPP (No 2) (1995) 38 NSWLR 257; (1995) 132 ALR 307 ; (1995) 83 A Crim R 208 and (CC) Commonwealth Constitution s 51(xxxi), (CTH) 135ZZM(1) Australian Tape Manufacturers Assn Ltd vs. Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480.
The Daily Trumpet complains to the publisher that they have lost all the value from their exclusive serialisation rights to the book.
Commercial dispute
The daily Trumpet has all the chances to win in the court because the publisher is guilty in criminal negligence during the manufacturing process. The publisher should have a better safety control of all the scripts they receive from their partners.
The players named in Chapter 2 deny the claims that Gideon Goal has made. The players say they are consulting lawyers and will seek an injunction to stop all publication of the story.
Defamation, breach of confidence
Gideon Goal is guilty in violating the Information Privacy Act 2000, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and the Privacy Act 1988 (Gunasekara & Toy 2011). In addition, Goal’s conduct regarding his team mates is not ethical because they do not want the facts about their personal relations to be publicly spread.
The next day Daily Trumpet publishes on its website the full video of their meeting with Gideon Goal in the hotel.
Trade of Practices Act – exemption for activities carried out in the process of news gathering
The following issues are important here: Is it legal to broadcast without consent? If it is true that they are in relationships or is it a mere gossip? It is absolutely evident that if the players knew that they were being recorded then they would not have even agreed to meet their team mate, and of course, they would not have had an open discussion of their private matters with their team mate. Thus, if the players did not know they were being filmed then it was defamation, and a violation of surveillance and privacy laws. If they knew that fact, then both the newspaper and Gideon Goal are out of legal responsibility. However, Goal is still guilty in an unethical behaviour. Besides, the fact that the players are in a relationship is not supported by evidences; however, if this fact is true, then sews of defamation are less potential.
References
Albrecht, S, Borger, J, Groshong, P, Kissinger, A, Larsen, K, Leatherbury, T, Mandell, S, Mast, K, Horn, C, Walker, L, Williams, T, & Zansberg, S 2011, ‘RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MEDIA, PRIVACY, AND DEFAMATION LAW’, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, vol. 47 no. 1, pp. 359-391.
Burrell, R 2006, ‘Copyright Reform in the Early Twentieth Century: the View from Australia’, Journal Of Legal History, vol. 27 no. 3, pp. 239-265.
Cojuharenco, I, Shteynberg, G, Gelfand, M, & Schminke, M 2012, ‘Self-Construal and Unethical Behavior’, Journal Of Business Ethics, vol. 109 no. 4, pp. 447-461.
Gunasekara, G, & Toy, A 2011, ‘PRINCIPLES OR RULES: THE PLACE OF INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW’, Australian Universities Law Review, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 525-549.
Hirst, M & Patching R, 2007, Journalism Ethics: Arguments & Cases, OUP, Melbourne.
Kenyon, A 2012, ‘SIX YEARS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIFORM DEFAMATION LAW: DAMAGES, OPINION AND DEFENCE MEANINGS’, University Of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 35 no. 1, pp. 31-69.
Markovits, D 2011, A Modern Legal Ethics: Advocacy in a Democratic Age, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Pearson, M 2011, The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law, 4th ed., Allen & Unwin, Australia: Crows Nest, NSW.
Pearson, M 2012, Blogging and Tweeting without Getting Sued, Allen & Unwin, Australia.
Rolph, D 2010, ‘PUBLICATION, INNOCENT DISSEMINATION AND THE INTERNET AFTER DOW JONES & CO INC V GUTNICK’, University Of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 33 no. 2, pp. 562-580.
Rolph, D., Vitins, M & Banniste, J 2010, Media Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Schwartz, P 2009, ‘Keeping Track of Telecommunications Surveillance’, Communications Of The ACM, vol. 52 no. 9, pp. 24-26.