Why has no one sued Dateline: To Catch A Predator?

December 7, 2006 5:18 PM

Legally speaking, how do shows like NBC's "Dateline: To Catch a Predator" or COPS deal with broadcasting the faces of as yet unconvicted suspects?

I remember hearing in a documentary (okay, a "VH1 special") that all suspects on COPS have to sign the appropriate release forms (made easier, no doubt, by the fact that an overwhelming majority of people on COPS are drunk). This doesn't strike me as too far-fetched, what with the occasional blurred face and the general "I'm gonna be on the teevee" vibe of the show, but on what grounds can NBC broadcast the dozens and dozens of dumbstruck "child predators?" I can't imagine release forms are involved in that case, so what gives?

posted by StopMakingSense to law & government (23 comments total)

It doesn't matter if they've been convicted or not. They ventured out in public to meet a child for sex (which, of course, is extensively documented by IM chats, etc.), so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
posted by jayder at 5:23 PM on December 7, 2006

I wish I could recall the name of the guy that actually started this. He is just a guy out to stop pedifiles and Dateline picked up on it. I hate watching it because it seems like entrapment. But, then again, they did not have to fall for it. I am amazed that anyone could do the things those guys do now, especially after all the publicity about the program.
posted by JayRwv at 5:33 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Anybody in public can be filmed and broadcast because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

I'm speculating here, but I think that the blurred out faces on COPS are due to people who had an expectation of privacy in their homes and were dragged out of their homes by police and were never charged with anything so video would not be covered by the "you went out in public" exception and it would be portraying the person in a false light (that they are a criminal when they are not). Other people may be blurred out because while they were in public they were merely near a crime scene (as opposed to involved with a crime) and the video is falsely portraying them as involved -- again portraying them in a "false light."

On a false-light/slander/libel claim, truth is an absolute defense. So if you are being portrayed as a child-predator and you are in fact a child predator, there's no false light, slander or libel. Thus, no release would be necessary.
posted by GIRLesq at 5:38 PM on December 7, 2006

So if you are being portrayed as a child-predator and you are in fact a child predator

Yes, that's true - but you have to be proven a child-predator in a court of law - not just have damning evidence against you.

They may wait a few months to broadcast those specials and only show the guys who get convicted or plead guilty (most likely). That's the only way I can see that happens - same thing with the COPS thing. I would imagine that most guys who are shown either sign the waiver or plead guilty, which seals up the defense. The blurred ones are probably the poor Joes who tried to fight the charges.
posted by plaidrabbit at 5:48 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Yes, that's true - but you have to be proven a child-predator in a court of law - not just have damning evidence against you.

To be convicted and punished by the law for being a child-predator. They're not being sentenced by the show, they're just being filmed as they get caught doing something they shouldn't. I don't really see this as much different from airing security camera videos on tv. They rarely blur out the faces on those.

Also, from what I have seen from the show (which isn't much), the host doesn't accuse them of anything, instead he asks them questions which lets them put their feet in their mouths right on the air. If they had half a brain they would keep their stupid prevert mouths shut.
posted by tastybrains at 6:47 PM on December 7, 2006

I wish I could recall the name of the guy that actually started this. Jayrwv: are you thinking of this site., they have done some entrapment schemes, I think.
posted by Rumple at 6:56 PM on December 7, 2006

As it has been said... being in filmed in public is totally legal and soliciting a child for sex is totally not legal. Those scumbags get what they deserve for what they do. Perverted Justice does a great job of making sure everything is documented, that the predator is the first to make contact, first to mention sex and first to setup a meeting time. They are told more than once that the age of the person they are chatting with is a minor and often bring "a requested item" to prove intent.

Hopefully, the dirt bag low lives scum of the earth predators get eaten up in jail.

Perverted Justice should be having operations in every state in the country to get these predators off the street.
posted by randomthoughts at 7:17 PM on December 7, 2006

Actually, the people portrayed on COPS sign releases, according to a documentary I saw about the show.
posted by drstein at 7:26 PM on December 7, 2006

You might find this MeFi thread on Perverted Justice interesting.
posted by maryh at 7:28 PM on December 7, 2006

Here's the thing: reality, documentary or talk, you HAVE to get a release. Because they are all entertainment programs, run out of the alternative or entertainment divisions. Cops is essentially a cop documentary...where the star is the guy in the wife beater who gets tasered.

Dateline, is however, a news program. And the standards for news programs are substantially different. This is no different than the hidden camera exposes that have been done for years. The only wrinkle here is that the predator segments have been immensely more popular.

But they ARE news. And that's what makes it okay. I'm a reality TV producer. This is stuff I know.
posted by rileyray3000 at 7:36 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Aren't the suspects on Dateline ostensibly in someone's home where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
posted by electroboy at 8:29 PM on December 7, 2006

Aren't the suspects on Dateline ostensibly in someone's home where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Yeah, if that's a public place, what's a private place? I think one factor is that not too many folks are concerned with the rights of child molesters.
posted by mattbucher at 8:35 PM on December 7, 2006

>He is just a guy out to stop pedifiles

I know there is a guy doing this in the UK - he has proven to be helpful for law enforcement, but there is always the chance that someday the tables could be turned against him by the people he is trying to catch.
posted by jkaczor at 8:42 PM on December 7, 2006

Uh, to reiterate - I'm not asking whether To Catch a Predator is moral. I'm looking for what legal precedents limit it.

If, in public, there is never a reasonable expectation of privacy - why ever blur someone's face? Is that just to protect against possible misrepresentation and theoretical slander/libel lawsuits? I've watched enough Cops to know that it's not just folks who get dragged out of their homes.

And if rileyray3000 is still around -

What makes To Catch a Predator, or anything, I guess, a "news program," officially? What keeps COPS from being the same? Is it a subjective, self-defined category?
posted by StopMakingSense at 9:19 PM on December 7, 2006

Aren't the suspects on Dateline ostensibly in someone's home where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I'm in no way a lawyer, but it's not at all obvious to me that you have any reasonable expectation of privacy in any home other than your own.
Furthermore, the police never arrest the person inside the home that I've seen, they always wait for them to exit.
posted by solotoro at 9:24 PM on December 7, 2006

Here's the thing: reality, documentary or talk, you HAVE to get a release.

Yeah, no.

IANAL, but I was a journalist. I'm sure the the producers have made arrangements with the owners/lessees of the home to be there and be filming. And with that permission, from that location, you can film any damn thing you want.

Walk into my house. I'll take your picture. I own that picture. Doesn't matter if you're Britney Spears or Joe the Pedophile. My house. Not yours. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in my house. And that's all there is to it.

Hell, I can put a camera in the bathroom if I want...

You do, however, own your face. So, I can't advertise a product with your face in such a way as to infer that you are endorsing said product. That's the Rochester Folding Box case as the precedent.

But since the "product" is couched as a legitimate news production (you can call it entertainment, but Dateline can certainly demonstrate reasonable news value, just like 60 Minutes could), even the issue of promotional materials, such as network teases, is a stretch argument to make for the people caught on camera. And then all they'd have to do on that is skirt around the issue of personally identifying the mark in the teases (hide the face, shoot from the back, etc).
posted by frogan at 9:39 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

But they ARE news. And that's what makes it okay. I'm a reality TV producer. This is stuff I know.

That's NOT True. The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, does not allow government to discriminate between "news press" and "entertainment press." Libel and slander are illegal no matter what type of media you are. Beyond those areas and certain other restrictions on speech, the media can publish/produce anything they want.

Why do shows like Cops obtain waivers? Because they are a form of protection against lawsuits. They don't prevent against lawsuits, but they are a deterrent and they can be used in court.

If a program does not obtain waivers, it's a sign that its broadcasters are willing to face possible lawsuits (and probably expect to win).
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:15 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

If a program does not obtain waivers, it's a sign that its broadcasters are willing to face possible lawsuits (and probably expect to win).

Depending upon the time-delay between taping and broadcast, these guys may have already been convicted. I know that PJ crows about a nearly 100% conviction rate.
posted by unixrat at 4:37 AM on December 8, 2006

I second Frogan's opinion (and stand by my original comment above).
posted by GIRLesq at 9:31 AM on December 8, 2006

Everywhere outside totalitarian countries there is a simple defence against charges of defamation -- that the allegation is true. If you say someone is a thief, you don't have to show that he is a convicted thief, only that he has stolen something. Newspapers have taunted people who were unexpectedly found not guilty in court to sue them for libel, to obtain what is effectively a retrial of the facts even if it is not a criminal court (actually, the civil courts standards of proof are more relaxed, so it would not be a good deal for the suspect).

I guess Dateline is depending on the same thing -- "you really don't want us trying to prove in any court that you have done these sort of things".
posted by Idcoytco at 5:27 PM on December 8, 2006

I'm a reality TV producer. This is stuff I know.

Given the incorrectness of rileyray3000's answer, the above statement really got me chuckling ... kind of like, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
posted by jayder at 6:13 AM on December 9, 2006

I'm a reality TV producer. This is stuff I know.

Given the incorrectness of rileyray3000's answer, the above statement really got me chuckling ... kind of like, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

I think (and not being a reality TV producer, I'm venturing off the ranch here) that the obsessive, incorrect need for releases comes from a) over-zealous corporate lawyers attempting to deflect and manage b) issues of payment for performance and c) union rules for actors. Which doesn't mean anything for non-entertainment productions like news and documentary filmmakers.

But the funniest thing is ... releases, on their face, do not hold *any* legal water. No release *anyone* signs for *anything* means anything. Any semi-sharp lawyer can cut a release to shreds.

* The signing party didn't know what they were signing.
* The signing party was coerced.
* The signing party was verbally told something different that invalidates the release.
* The signing party is not themselves a lawyer and doesn't understand legal language.
* The release is unreasonably broad.
* The release is unreasonably narrow and doesn't address the specific problem in the complaint.

Release, schmleases.
posted by frogan at 12:36 PM on December 10, 2006

And, in a different domain, frogan, we have been told not to use releases for volunteers working with us since the release, in and of itself, documents that we recognize potential dangers and hence could increase our legal liability and constitute an admission of preventability if anything bad happens (this is field trips, lab work etc, at a Canadian educational institution, so not even the suit-happy USA). (These releases say things like "we will be working with sharp pointy sticks" and so forth).

Like I say, different context, but it is amusing that the release/waiver from liability can actually amount to an admission of said liability.
posted by Rumple at 10:11 PM on December 10, 2006