When may the press, an internet news service or an internet multimedia broadcasting service avoid liability even though its reporting has infringed another person's personality rights?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file, we read the published report itself to see what it says and about whom, any consent obtained from the victim, and the material the media body relied on to support the public interest of the report and either its truth or the justifiable reason to believe it true, as each of these bears on a condition the provision attaches.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading states the exception as a set of conditions that must all hold: the press, an internet news service or an internet multimedia broadcasting service does not bear liability for an infringement of personality rights so long as it does not go against social norms, it falls within one of the listed cases, namely either conduct carried out with the victim's consent, or reporting that concerns the public interest and is true or reasonably believed to be true, and no special statute provides otherwise.
Another reading stresses the outer limits the provision itself draws: the words 'as long as' make conformity with social norms an ongoing boundary around both listed cases, and the reference to a special statute means the shield of non-liability falls away wherever such a statute imposes liability for the same reporting.
Your judgment
Where the media body claims reasonable belief in the truth of a report, what in the file would show how far that belief went and on what grounds it rested?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to change which of the three categories the rule covers, the listed cases or the reference to social norms, or if a court decision explains how far a special statute displaces this non-liability.