Today on AirTalk, we'll talk about the moral culpability of the media in light of the apparent suicide following a royal radio prank and discuss the legal rights of Yelp reviewers and reviewees. On FilmWeek, Larry and the critics review Hyde Park on Hudson, Quartet, Rust and Bone, Playing for Keeps, and more.
Royal radio prank culminates in apparent suicide of nurse
A nurse at London’s King Edward VII Hospital has been found dead today of an apparent suicide. Jacintha Saldanha was unwittingly involved in a phone prank carried out by Australian radio hosts Mel Greig and Michael Christian. The DJs pretended to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles calling to check up on the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, who was hospitalized for acute morning sickness.
Saldanha, a duty nurse, answered the initial call from the radio hosts in the absence of a receptionist and forwarded their call to another nurse attending to the pregnant Duchess – this second nurse divulged several details of Middleton’s ailments on the air, much to the dismay of the hospital and the royal family. Greig and Christian have expressed remorse over the prank, and both the DJs and the royal family have publicly announced their sadness over Saldanha’s death.
This is not the first unsettling incident for the prank DJs, who were given a five year license probation in 2009 after a phony lie detector prank resulted in a 14-year-old girl admitting on live radio that she was raped. Should radio hosts and celebrity pranksters be held morally culpable for any ensuing chaos? If Greig and Christian work in the U.S., would their licenses be revoked? How much responsibility do public figures have to be sensitive to their audience?
Guest:
Clare Burton, News Correspondent, BBC News
Bad Yelp review? Tell it to the judge
A homeowner in Fairfax County, Virginia, disappointed in the contractor she’d hired, did what any normal person would do: she went on both Yelp and Angie’s List and gave the guy scathing, one-star reviews. In her screed, Jane Perez accused Christopher Dietz of damaging her townhouse, inflating charges and stealing jewelry.
Business owners from restaurateurs to dentists to hairdressers have long complained that they have no recourse against self-appointed online reviewers; like diamonds, a bad review is forever. But Dietz fought back- in the courts. He’s suing Perez for defamation and asking $750,000 in damages. While he’s deciding the case, the Virginia judge has ordered Perez to remove certain online accusations and barred her from reposting them. Free speech advocates warn of a slippery slope towards the stifling of constitutional rights. But merchants increasingly claim to be the victim of false and malicious reviewers, some of whom represent on the sites with fake identities.
Should online reviews require verification, and if so, how would it be done? Does the law protect businesses that have been maligned online? If you rely on review sites when choosing a service, how can you be sure the reviewer is being truthful? Have you ever written a bad online review?
Guest:
Aaron Morris, partner, Morris & Stone law firm and President of the California Defamation Lawyers Association
Mark Goldowitz, founder and director, California Anti-SLAPP Project
SCOTUS to hear Prop 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take on a case involving same-sex marriage rights for the first time, announcing today that it will rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, as well as New Yorker Edie Windsor’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case.
The court had 10 same-sex marriage cases to choose from -- many analysts speculated that they might not address any of them, or would refrain from ruling on Prop 8 because of the broader implications the decision could have in the 39 states where same-sex marriage is banned. The court could still rule in a way that strikes down DOMA and/or Proposition 8 without addressing the broader legality of same-sex marriage itself. They have also left themselves an out -- the option to dismiss either case if they determine a ruling would have no merit.
Prop 8 has had a tumultuous history since it was passed by California voters in 2008. Later, a federal judge struck down Proposition 8, saying it violated the constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, but under narrower grounds, saying the state could not take from gay couples a right that they had already been granted.
A Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 could have a widespread impact on marriage equality nationwide, and a ruling on Windsor’s DOMA case could set a precedent for similar cases in other states. How might the Supreme Court address marriage equality in the near future? Could changing popular opinions and state votes affect their decision?
Guests:
Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter, Bloomberg News
Robin Tyler, executive director of the Equality Campaign, and was the first plaintiff in the lawsuit in 2004 that went to the Supreme Court arguing for same-sex marriage
Laura Brill, Partner with the law firm Kendall Brill Klieger; Former Supreme Court Law Clerk for the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Brill's pro bono work focuses on same-sex marriage rights
John Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University
FilmWeek: Hyde Park on Hudson, Quartet, Rust and Bone, and more
Larry is joined by KPCC film critics Peter Rainer from the Christian Science Monitor and Lael Loewenstein from Variety to review the week’s new film releases including Hyde Park on Hudson, Quartet, Rust and Bone, Playing for Keeps, and more. TGI-FilmWeek!
Hyde Park on Hudson:
Quartet:
Rust and Bone:
Playing for Keeps:
Guests:
Peter Rainer, film critic for KPCC and for the Christian Science Monitor
Lael Loewenstein, film critic for KPCC and Variety