With the increasing competition among the different newspapers and TV news channels at times, the rights of children are infringed. In some cases the use of the names and photographs of children are stated without due consideration to their age, which is a complete violation of their privacy. Let’s take for an example a boy of about 8-year old was alleged to have killed three children.
In reporting the story, the newspaper reports referred to him as a ‘serial killer’ and a ‘tyrant’ with his photograph and name mentioned. The law is clear that no child who is in conflict with law should be named or his photograph published. This seeks to stigmatize the child. It may be true that the allegation about the killing is true, but to tag him as a serial killer and a tyrant is unacceptable in professional consideration.
We must recognize that the child acts without experience or knowledge of what he or she is doing. Another important issue is that of the right to information of a child. Children are the largest viewers of television and also have access to other forms of media, thus, media holds a responsibility to render proper information which is suitable for children. This article takes a glance at the role of the media in the protection of identity of children and their right to information.
With regard to protection of the identity, emphasis is laid on the general laws that prohibit publication of the identity of a child who is a victim or a witness to a case. The article also covers the initiatives which can be taken in a country like Sierra Leone with regard to measures laid down under the Convention on the Rights of Child.
The Juvenile Justice System (JJS) in any country should clearly state that "No report in any newspaper, magazine or news-sheet or visual media of any enquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law shall disclose the names, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the juvenile." "Juvenile in conflict with law" would mean a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence and not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of such an offence.
However, only if the enquiring authority in the interest of the juvenile permits such disclosure in writing, then the press is justified in publishing such news. The right of privacy and the right of the media and the public in general to the information has to be conciliated very often by establishing thresholds or balances relating to their compatibility. Particularly important are the cases where the privacy is that of a minor, which deserves special interest and protection in order to avoid any damage to the minor’s development or environment that may cause trouble to the minor’s social life.
Courts, when required to do so, frequently rule “anonymity orders”, preventing the publication of information regarding a particular case where the applicant has provided grounds that his privacy is at risk. The threshold is even higher in the case of minor’s privacy. Penal Code, in the opinion of this writer clearly enumerates that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 12 years, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
It should also be noted that children below the age of seven years are deemed to be incapable of criminal offence. Some times, as a result of school going children action, authorities may decide to take action that would serve as a deterrent to others. But when the actions are published in newspapers which state that the school was going to rusticate the students from the school following charges of having committed an offence under the law may be seen as unfair, especially in a situation when they are below maturity age. It should be the general practice of journalist that when reporting crime involving rape, abduction or kidnap of women/females or sexual assault on children, or raising doubts and question touching the chastity, personal character and privacy of women, the names, photographs of victims or other particulars leading to their identity should not be published. While such publication served no legitimate public purpose, it may bring social opprobrium to the victims and social embarrassment to their relations, family friends, community, religion or the institution to which they belong.
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| 
