Post on 19-Feb-2023
Päivi Korpisaari
Professor in Communication Law
University of Helsinki
Faculty of Law
paivi.korpisaari@helsinki.fi
The Difference Between Media Self-Regulation and Legal Regulation
Finnish Media Self-Regulation in Relation to Legal Regulation
Conclusions
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
Legal Regulation International Conventions, e.g.
European Convention on Human Rights
Constitution of Finland
Criminal Code of Finland
Tort Liability Act
Copyright Act
Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media
Act on Audiovisual Programming
Etc.
Guidelines for Journalists
General Statements of the Council for Mass Media
Decisions of the CMM
Self-Regulation
No financial consequences
“Public shame”: the duty to publish the decision of CMM
As a rule it is not the individual journalist but the medium that gets the reprimand
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
Legal Regulation
Guarantee the implementation/realisation of basic and human rights
Maintain peace, security and justice
Reduce the need for revenge or putting justice in victim’s or their relative’s own hands
Crime prevention Compensating victims
Maintain trust and confidence in the action in question
Combat excessive or unwanted public regulation and control
Enhance branch’s own prestige and position in the industry
In some fields its purpose can also be to control and limit the competition position in the industry in question
Self-Regulation
Risk of mixing the specific interests of the industry in question and the interests of society in general
Setting standards according to "weak players"
Serving the interests of powerful actors
=> not problems in Finnish media’s self-regulation
Usually self-regulation demands at least in some respects higher standards of behaviour than legislation.
Usually self-regulation can’t ‘undercut’ the legal standards.
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
Professional status
Obtaining and publishing information
The rights of interviewer and interviewee
Corrections and right of reply; and
Private and public
The purpose of guidelines is not to serve as a basis for tort or criminal liability
The breach of good journalistic ethics does not necessarily cause damage or harm
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
Legislation doesn’t refer to the Guidelines for Journalists or to good press ethics
Preliminary works of legislation have some references to good professional practices but they are not tied to the Guidelines for Journalists
The courts don’t appear to use self-regulation as a basis or additional ground for tort liability or criminal liability
BUT: When the court is evaluating whether someone has acted negligently it is thinking how a careful person would act in that kind of situation. If a person is acting in a professional capacity in a certain field the standards are higher than if the court would be evaluating the leisure activity of an ordinary person.
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
Media’s self-regulation and legal regulation are both important systems and they have different functions
Though they are two different regimes it is important to keep both in view. In general it would jeopardize the credibility of the self-regulation regime if the good media-ethical procedure – as determined by the Council for Mass Media – would often be illegal. Of course that can still happen in exceptional cases.
The way the European Court of Human Rights refers to the good press ethics in its judgments needs more legal scrutiny
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari
http://www.jsn.fi/en/guidelines_for_journalists/
http://www.jsn.fi/en/how_to_complain/
http://www.jsn.fi/en/Council_for_Mass_Media/the-council-for-mass-media-in-finland/
SLS Nottingham 10.9.2014 © Päivi Korpisaari