A sophomore at Springfield University claims a chemistry professor has sexually harassed her.
Karen Hart, 123 Hill Hall, says the professor, George O.T. Jungle, has touched her during tutoring sessions in his office and has invited her to his apartment several times. She said she declined his invitations.
"I am having trouble in the class and I have to go see him to get help with my papers and projects," Hart said. "But I am scared to go in his office now."
Jungle denied having an improper contact with the student and threatened this newspaper with a libel suit if it published the story.
Hart said she is thinking of filing a formal complaint with the university.
"I don't know how to do that," she said. "I don't know what to do."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bold and italic part of the passage is the obvious libelous message.
The problem with this article is:
1) There is no proof other than a statement from the supposed victim that she had been sexually harassed meaning using the "watchdog" case for journalism defense probably won't work because there isn't enough proof.
2) The teacher did not give permission for the reporter to publish this article thereby violating his right to privacy.
I'm not exactly sure how you would be able to publish this without getting a libelous suit. The one way I see this working is if the "watchdog defense" could be used here. Perhaps if Hart went to the police and filed this report making it something the police would have to allow as something that can be released to the public, then maybe it can be released because it becomes public instead of private.
Another way is instead of having the teacher just say "Don't publish" ask him if he would be willing to give his side of the story so that both Hart and the teacher have equal say on the accusation. This makes the article fair and the teacher will more likely give consent.
Lastly if you want to go around the "libel suit" threat, then find undeniable proof and facts that this event occured, by investigating further into the case before publishing. This makes the article more factual and gives the teacher no defense in the case.
Not sure if there is any other way this could be made better, please let me know of any other ways =).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are focusing on all the right elements of this story. You've identified the main problem: this is only an allegation; no formal complaint has been filed.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, there is nothing to report. If the student files a complaint, then you have a story. If you investigate and find others making similar allegations, then you probably have a story. But one person making an inflammatory allegation with no evidence to back it up, and no complaint filed, means there's not a story here ... at least not yet.
That means you shouldn't print any of this ... at least not if you want to avoid being sued for libel.
9/10