The ruling will affect us all. In mid-June, the cantonal court of Zug to decide whether, and under what circumstances the media may report on intimate Affairs of prominent persons on the specific example of a "view"article by the end of 2014. The newspaper had reported that the Green-certain day, Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin and SVP-colleague from the Council, Markus Hürlimann were come to the land of Ammann-Party closer. That Spiess-Hegglin then medically examined was that they suspected that they had administered their narcotic substances, and that Hürlimann was temporarily in jail.
Medical Tests have confirmed the assumption with the substances. Nevertheless, following the initial reporting by the "view" an unprecedented media battle with opinions, theories and accusations, malice, and hatred, on all channels about the protagonists, especially about Spiess-Hegglin, ergo. Today, four and a half years later, Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin is not a political office, the level of awareness of a controversial TV presenter. It calls for Ringier an apology and satisfaction, and reserves the right to take legal action to Gain restitution and damages.
Valid reasons for a report
For the information and the freedom of the media, so for the society as a whole, it is to be hoped that the court rejects the suit of Spiess-Hegglin. The media sphere puts very high demands on intervention in the intimate. However, these were given in this case: the President of The SVP of the Canton of Zug sat in custody because he was suspected to have the Co-President of the Zug-based Green desecrated. To the police anyone can go, but that they come out with the handcuffs – it takes more than a unsubstantiated accusation. Apparently, there were reasons to assume that the presumption could be true. A politician who is in prison, and a politician because of alleged desecration to the hospital – if that is no reason, from the protection of the intimate sphere in sight, what then?
That Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin's not the life she would lead as a lawyer said Wednesday in court, for several reasons. On the one hand, the Thousands of media reports. On the other hand, Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin yourself, is it to be desecrated to (want to be called: in wehrlosem condition miss), and their former colleagues, had continued, at least indirectly accused of. The battle culminated in an article in the "world week", in which the author Spiess-Hegglin had Hürlimann "have been accused of planned wrong" to cover up the adultery. The newspaper was convicted of libel.
A question of ethics
What relates to the "view"-reporting, is less a legal than an ethical issue. Law and ethics are not often congruent, says media scientist Roger Blum. The "view" would have to be, he shouldn't have to give the two until then national totally unknown politician with full of identity. The presumption of innocence would clearly need to be appreciated. The damage for the parties Involved would be significant have been small.
The Ringier lawyer was in court with all the power on Spiess-Hegglin. It should rather be the perpetrator than the victim, have invented their story, "" an Innocent man to prison. You external further about the affair, although it is of interest to anyone. To say this in the face of over 200 articles, he has published the "views" about Spiess-Hegglin, is reprehensible. If the media take the behavior of the actors (the way that Spiess-Hegglin managed the case until today) for the occasion, on the same plane back zuschiessen, then you have not understood their function.
No wonder, beats Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin on your right. Much better it would be, the Ringier managers would put up with her at the table and own up to what the newspaper could have done better. (Editorial Tamedia)
Created: 12.04.2019, 12:31 PM