Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, all of which are famous names that are linked since two years under the tag #MeToo with a global debate around sexual harassment. In Germany, the film's Director Dieter Wedel was levied against women in the time of serious allegations, the most prominent #MeToo case. But more often there were cases in which the Name of the accused has not been called and the made however, for discussion – and certainly not only among those directly Concerned.
So it was published with a Search, the Reporter from the online magazine Buzzfeed, and Vice, a few weeks ago. It was about accusations against a well-known Berlin-based HIV specialist, the homosexual patients in his practice of sexual abuse. The journalists were several witnesses to speak, in languages with advice. The accused doctor declined to comment to the two media. As they published the article, nevertheless, obtained a restraining order against the publication.
the result of the online magazines have deleted two articles. The case touches on a difficult media legal theme that plays in the #MeToo reporting a particularly large role. How should journalists abuse to deal with cases of mutmasslichem power and sexual harassment that is issued by a court where no court judgment? In which there is also often no evidence, it comes to situations that occur most often in locked rooms?
Strict rules for reporting Suspected
While Buzzfeed and Vice had not called the name of a Berlin doctor, the it went in your articles. However, due to its specialization and other particulars from the articles, it is easy to identify. Since serious allegations against a physician, to have exploited the relationship of trust to its patients, therefore, are on the one page. And on the other side of the enormous damage that is created just for a Person with his career and Reputation by public accusations, the manufactures still as unfair can make.
"The chamber tends to be the reporting as vorverurteilend view."Holger Thiel, Chairman of judges
For such a suspicion reporting, therefore, apply strict rules. So there is a public interest must be present, for example, due to the Severity of the allegations. In addition, a minimum stock of proof there are facts, the accused the opportunity to provide comments be granted, and journalists must not write vorverurteilend, but must be suspected in a balanced way. The revelations to Dieter Wedel, which had a research team of the "time" initiated, there were fierce discussions. The reporters were honored for their suspicion reporting with renowned journalists prices.
at the hearing, to the fall of the Berlin doctor made the judge of the Berlin regional court is now clear that while there is a substantial public interest in information – the type and manner of reporting were nevertheless inadmissible. "The chamber tends to be the reporting as vorverurteilend view," said the presiding judge Holger Thiel. The patients of the doctor would comprehensive the studies in which the Assault is supposed to be, would be described in all details. In the end, no doubt, remain so to the reader: So it has to be.
Some of the protagonists represents sworn statements
lawyer Jan Hegemann, Vice and Buzzfeed in the case, sees it differently. "The suspicion reporting requires no proof of a Crime," he says in court. The journalists had operated an extensive Search and numerous proof of facts presented. If you had checked the many witness statements in conversations with persons from the environment of the witnesses, through diary entries and chat logs on their plausibility. Meanwhile, some of the protagonists have also made sworn statements.
"The reader is Mature enough, he can form out of what is presented to it, an opinion."Jan Hegemann, lawyer of Vice and Buzzfeed
bring the Wealth of material now have the impression that the debt of the doctor is already on top of it this was due to just the careful approach of his clients. The journalists had also written always of the "alleged Assault", and also other formulations made it clear that the allegations against the doctor were not used. "The reader is Mature enough, he can form out of what is presented to it, an opinion," says Hegemann.
That the article is unbalanced can appear to be, location may be simply that the accused doctor had not taken to the charges. Instead, he had his lawyer announce that all of the coverage is inadmissible.
John Eisenberg, a lawyer for the doctor, speaks, however, of "lying, false affidavits," an existence of devastating reporting and of the "Bang witnesses, who had reported on denunzia toric way". Just because his client is so well-known, and the information in the article identifiable, it should have been with a different deal, after all, a "huge economic damage threat".
"I am disappointed by the verdict, because I think that it was a strong Research."Daniel Drepper, editor in chief of Buzzfeed Germany
the allegations had not been able to take his client's position, because to him the names of the men she collected, had not been called. Only with the name, he would have been able to understand what kind of treatment situations, go for it. This, in turn, the journalists disagreed with the reference to the source protection. The victims were homosexuals, who were possibly sexually-transmitted diseases, especially vulnerable and worthy of protection.
In the trial, is, nevertheless, clear that the judges stay in their evaluation: several Times you point out that you are missing in the article is a distancing to the statements of the patients, a hint that everything could be completely different – since formulations such as "allegedly" or "apparently not enough". In the end, the court confirmed the injunction, the reasons for Judgment are to follow.
"I am disappointed by the verdict, because I think that it was a strong Research," says Daniel Drepper, editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed Germany. The Reporter would have formulated had many sources in proof of the facts presented, moreover, are always in the subjunctive. "Since then, we have published the texts have 40 new sources reported." The media house wants to wait for the verdict of the court and then decide whether to take further legal steps. Until then, it is on Buzzfeed under the Headline, "Behind closed doors" continues: "This Research is soon available again".
Created: 31.10.2019, 15:39 PM