The Finnish Model Of Media Self-regulation and Freedom Of Speech from the Legal Point of View

Päivi Korpisaari

Professor in Communication Law

University of Helsinki

Faculty of Law

[email protected]

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


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



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.


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


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.


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


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/




















The Finnish Model Of Media Self-regulation and Freedom Of Speech from the Legal Point of View

Documents

Transcript of The Finnish Model Of Media Self-regulation and Freedom Of Speech from the Legal Point of View