Check out The Jerusalem Declaration

Check out The Jerusalem Declaration

Ethics

There is a pervading crisis of confidence and trust in the global corporate culture. Trust has been ruptured between many organizations and their constituencies. Yet trust is at the basis of every relationship. The loss of trust leads to the loss of reputation and, ultimately, to the loss of business. Furthermore, ethical lapses can have substantial financial consequences for corporations with very costly litigation and government fines.

Recent corporate scandals and new legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as well as government regulations and public scrutiny have made it imperative for corporations and not-for-profit institutions to develop and implement ethics programs. These programs can dramatically reduce fines imposed on companies found in wrongdoing. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines state that judges can reduce or multiply fines depending on whether or not a company has an effective ethics program.

Ruder Finn, the independent global public relations agency, has been, since its early years, deeply concerned with and committed to ethics in the workplace. Ethics has always been an integral part of its corporate structure. Since its early beginnings, the firm has had an Ethics Committee to address ethical issues facing the company by analyzing them carefully and examining the consequence of different courses of action. The firm has developed an internal ethics program that has allowed Ruder Finn's management to make critical decisions in resolving ethical issues.
Ruder Finn now offers ethics consulting to its existing and prospective clients. The new service can help them develop effective programs specific to their industry, company and culture.

Clear communication is key in developing ethics programs. Effective communications can convey to stakeholders, such as employees, the community and the government, the company's values and commitment to ethical behavior.

An effective ethics program can help foster an ethical culture throughout the organization. The development of an ethics culture within a company can not only prevent wrongdoing from taking place, but can also increase morale, loyalty and productivity.

What do gifts and bribes have to do with ethics?

Political decisions are supposed to be made on the merits of the case, not based on whether or not the decision maker has received a lovely case of wine from one of the parties. This is a simple matter of fairness. When decision makers take gifts, even if their votes are not influenced, they give the appearance of being on the take, which undermines public confidence in government.
What ethical dilemmas do gifts and bribes present?

People do not go into government work to make a lot of money. Especially at the local level, elected officials may receive only token payment for the number of hours they put into the job. In this context, it is tempting to say that tickets to the local performing arts center or sporting arena are well-deserved perks of office. Some even argue that attending such events is part of the job and crucial to understanding the experience of citizens who use these venues.

On the other side, such gifts may well influence officials when they need to determine whether the performing arts center should expand or whether the arena can add retail outlets that local businesses oppose. Also, such gifts can create a slippery slope, with officials coming to expect VIP treatment and making local businesses feel coerced into offering it so that they can receive a fair hearing.

By the same token, it is incumbent upon businesses to comply with government regulations on gift giving. While it may be common in the private sector to acknowledge important customers with extravagant holiday gifts, this practice is disallowed in the public sphere; the gravel company that tries to reward the mayor of a city that has made a big purchase with 10 pounds of expensive chocolate simply puts the mayor in the awkward position of returning the gift.


Corporate Ethics & Gift Giving

Corporate Ethics & Gift Givingthumbnail Corporate gift giving is restricted by policy and tax laws.

Corporate ethics can involve complicated areas where both impressions and laws affect business decisions. Giving giving, a common practice by corporations, is one of these areas where companies must pay attention to how a gift to a client may be interpreted. Most large companies have specific policies regarding the giving and receiving of gifts from other businesses.

   1. Gifts

 A gift in the business world is a spontaneous gesture from one business to another (or to different employees in the same business), usually through two contacts from either business. Gifts can take many forms, from monetary donations to gift certificates and objects such as food. Gifts are defined largely by their independence. A gift is not given as part of a program or as an agreement between two people--this is known as an incentive, which is more typical between employer and employees.
    
 Company Policies
        Company policies governing gift giving are typically very specific so that those in marketing and business relations understand their boundaries. Some business industries have a complete ban on gifts. These businesses, such as insurance companies, retail stores and medical centers, cannot afford to have any gift resemble a bribe in any way and simply refuse to accept them. Other businesses limit the value of the gifts they give or receive, and the situations in which gifts can be given.
    
 Improper Gifts
    Gifts should never be offered during a bidding process, even if the bidding falls during a holiday event such as a Christmas function or Independence Day barbecue. These are always seen as bribes, and in general gifts should not be given to a company if the business is still in negotiations over a contract or offer. Expensive gifts such as cars should also be avoided, especially when offered to executives. Businesses giving gifts can use company policy as a guideline, but should also avoid giving the wrong impression.
   
 Giving Practices
  Gifts should be given on appropriate occasions, such as at holidays, and should always mirror the type of relationship the businesses have. A long-term client may deserve a more personal or expensive gift than a new client. Gifts should match the styles and tastes of the client, but also be within the proper bounds of a business relationship. Personal touches such as a written card can often create a favorable impression no matter the cost of the gift itself.
   
 Taxes
 The Internal Revenue Service allows businesses to deduct a business gift costing up to $75, which provides many companies with a useful rule when money is spent on gifts. However, typically gifts over $25 count as taxable income when given to employees, so most in-business gifts fall below this amount.

    * Sympathy Gift Basketswww.lifetributes.com/SympathyGiftBaskets

      Amazing Selection & Guaranteed To Comfort When It's Needed Most.
    * Business Ethicswww.crnrstone.com

      Strategic planning & advisory services for mid-size banks
    * Ask a Tax Advisor OnlineTax.JustAnswer.com

      5 Tax Professionals Are Online. Current Wait Time: 10 Minutes.
    * Gifts with Logoswww.blinkproductdesign.com

      Custom Logo Gifts Company Logo Gifts w/ Free Gift Box

References

    * Motivation Network: Present Perfect: The Art of Corporate Gift Giving
    * University of Tennessee at Martin: Approaches to Business Ethics
    * Texas A&M University: Accepting Gifts And Amenities

Gifts can undermine integrity?

Gifts can compromise AAOS’s Principles in Medical Ethics of Professionalism in Orthopedics by undermining the physician’s integrity and challenging his or her honesty regarding the use of the knowledge or equipment being highlighted at a company-sponsored “educational” course. Gifts also can produce a conflict of interest in deciding the most appropriate care to be provided to the patient.

At the center of the ethical concern is that the orthopedic profession exists for the primary purpose of caring for the patient and thus the patient’s well-being is central to all orthopedic ethical decisions.

The AAOS opinion on gifts and the orthopedic surgeon’s relationship with industry states: “Generally, the Academy believes it is acceptable for industry to provide financial and other support to orthopedic surgeons if such support has significant educational value and has the purpose of improving patient care. All dealings between orthopedic surgeons and industry should benefit the patient and be able to withstand public scrutiny.”
Gifts should benefit patients

The academy’s guidelines emphasize that any gift or other financial support accepted by an orthopedic surgeon should include a benefit for his or her patient. Under no circumstances should an orthopedic surgeon accept gifts with conditions attached.

image For instance, it would be unethical to attend an educational meeting in which there was an understood or implied requirement that products highlighted at the course must be utilized by the attendees. Social functions may also take on the appearance of a gift if there is no educational value attached to the event — such as a sporting event, evening at the theatre, golf outing or gourmet dinner. The absolute ethical “no-no” is acceptance of monetary gifts.

In review, there are basically two times when gifts from industry are ethically permissible. One is for subsidies to underwrite the cost of educational events. CME credits must be awarded at these events, and the purpose of the event must be to improve practitioner knowledge, thus improving patient care. Furthermore, support for the educational opportunity must be acknowledged, and the content of the educational experience and the desired attendees should be determined by the sponsoring organization and not by the industry providing the subsidy.

The other occasion when a gift from industry is appropriate is in relationship to expenses and honoraria for faculty. Providing an educational experience to an industry-sponsored conference is ethically sound as long as the sponsoring organization controls the content and attendance.

The orthopedic surgeon must remember that the welfare of the patient is paramount in any ethical dilemma. Surgeons should diligently avoid industry incentives intended to influence treatment choices or use of devices or diagnostic approaches that are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

The ORTHOSuperSite is intended for physician use and all comments will be posted at the discretion of the editors. We reserve the right not to post any comments with unsolicited information about medical devices or other products. At no time will the ORTHOSuperSite be used for medical advice to patients.

When is it ethical to accept a gift?

AAOS guidelines make clear that support from industry must have educational value and improve patient care.

by David Apple, MD

 The dictionary defines a gift as something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation. Gifts are often given in appreciation, as thanks, or in response to a favor. Many gifts are given freely and with no strings attached; however, with some gifts there may be an expectation for something in return.

Accepting such gifts frequently or carelessly can lead to abuse and an ethical dilemma for physicians. Test your “Ethics IQ” on accepting gifts by answering the following true/false questions:

   1. When attending a drug company dinner and educational presentation, you can accept a Mont Blanc pen as a favor.       True or False?

   2. An equipment company sponsoring a course offers to pay your fellow’s expenses to the course. You cannot accept the offer.       True or False?

   3. You are invited to lunch and a tennis game to discuss a new NSAID. You can accept the invitation.
      True or False?

   4. You are invited to be an all-expenses-paid lecturer at a company-sponsored course. You will also receive an honorarium. You can accept the invitation.       True or False?

   5. A company representative volunteers to bring lunch for your staff if the physicians attend. You can accept the offer.       True or False?
The correct answers
1. False: Attending a drug company dinner with an educational presentation is within ethical guidelines, but accepting a Mont Blanc pen, which has a value of around $100, would be unacceptable.

   2. False: A company can provide money for an educational course that can be designated for resident and fellow attendance, but the entity developing the course content also must maintain the authority to determine those who may attend utilizing funds provided by the company.

   3. False: A reasonably priced lunch with a discussion of a new NSAID would be acceptable, but adding a recreational event would make this ethically unacceptable.

   4. True: An invitation to be a lecturer with all expenses paid for a company-sponsored course that also provides an honorarium is acceptable under the guidelines of the academy’s statement on ethics as well as AdvaMed’s Code of Ethics, the ethical consortium for industry.

   5. True: It is acceptable for a company representative to bring lunch for the office staff if the physicians attend as long as the lunch is of reasonable value and the educational content will benefit the patient care.

Bribery

April 9, 2007

In a recent article in the Financial Times, columnist and legal counsel Patti Walmeir says that: “for decades bribery has just been just another cost of doing business” and that “more companies are now finding that what previously seemed like harmless acts of foreign palm-greasing can cost millions.”

The French company, Total, the world largest oil company is under investigation both in France and in the U.S. for bribing foreign officials and individuals.

The same is true for the German company Siemens, one of the world’s largest electrical and telecommunication company. (Ranked 22 on Fortune Global 500 companies)

What is bribery?

Most likely we were all offered bribes in the earliest part of our lives by…..our parents!

Some say that bribery is a parent’s best tool. Offering child a treat in exchange for induced good behavior does qualify as a bribe.

A bribe is a gift given with the intention to change the behavior of the person in a way that is not consistent with his or her responsibilities.

There is a difference between bribery and extortion. A bribe is offered to obtain a favor but an extortion is a demand made under threat.

Rabbi Asher Meir thinks that there is a difference, (at least a moral difference) between a bribe given to expedite an action that the person would take anyway and one which he or she would not.  It is one thing to bribe a building inspector to expedite the delivery of a permit if the building is in conformity with the building code. It is quite another matter to bribe a building inspector to grant a permit when the building is not in comformity with the code.

Others have a more absolute view.   

The U.S. Government has a clear, comprehensive definition! More than 30 years ago, in 1997, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) that covers every U.S. company or any company that does business in the U.S.

Bribery violates justice and fairness. It also damages trust. As John Jay Hooker said:

“But there will be no justice, there will be no government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as long as the government and its officials permit bribery in any form. “

Who Counts?

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

For over eight years the three monkeys immobilized in harnesses have sat staring helplessly from their cages. Their paralyzed limbs dangling at their sides have been useless appendages since researchers eight years ago cut their nerves in experiments. According to the director of the National Institutes of Health, they now "give evidence of frequent, unrelievable pain." Experimenters plan next to surgically remove the tops of the monkey's skulls, insert electrodes to take brain measurements, and finally kill them, all as part of a research project on spinal cord injuries financed by the National Institutes of Health.

Clearly, the experimenters would never have done to humans what they did to these monkeys. Their moral principles and ours dictate that inflicting such massive insults is a shockingly abhorrent injustice. But, like some of us, the experimenters apply their principles to humans and not to animals: animals don't count. In fact, one of the most fundamental dividing lines in morality is the one we draw between those who count in our moral considerations and those that don't, or, as ethicists sometimes put it, between those who do and those who don't have moral standing.

What is moral standing? An individual has moral standing for us if we believe that it makes a difference, morally, how that individual is treated, apart from the effects it has on others. That is, an individual has moral standing for us if, when making moral decisions, we feel we ought to take that individual's welfare into account for the individual's own sake and not merely for our benefit or someone else's benefit.

Take, for example, a doctor who attends to the physical welfare of her patients and believes that it would be morally wrong to mistreat them. Suppose that she believes this not because of any benefits she will derive from taking good care of them nor because she is afraid of being sued, but only because she has a genuine concern for her patients' well-being. Her patients have moral standing for her. On the other hand, take a farmer who looks after the welfare of his cows and who also believes that it would be morally wrong to mistreat them. But suppose he believes this only because mistreating them would decrease their milk production and their milk is an essential source of nourishment and income for his family. Although this farmer considers his cows' welfare, he does so only for the sake of his family and not for the sake of the cows themselves. For the farmer, the cows have no moral standing.

The oldest and most prevalent view of who has moral standing is the belief that only human beings have moral standing; only human beings ultimately count in matters of morality. This anthropocentric or "human centered" conviction is usually linked to the idea that only creatures with the capacity to reason (perhaps as expressed through language) have absolute value and consequently they are the only creatures whose well-being ought to be taken into account for their own sakes.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, viewed nature as a hierarchy, believing that less rational creatures are made for the benefit of those that are more rational. He wrote "Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake of man." In a similar vein, the seventeenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that "So far as animals are concerned, we have no direct moral duties; animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man." For these thinkers, therefore, only human beings have moral standing, so the welfare of other creatures matters only if they are useful to humans.

The conviction that only human beings ultimately count in morality doesn't imply that we have no moral obligations whatsoever toward nonhumans. Even anthropocentric views hold that it is immoral to destroy plants or animals needlessly since by doing so we are destroying resources that may provide significant benefits to ourselves or to future human generations. Some anthropocentric positions also hold that all cruelty toward animals is immoral because, as the philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas put it, "through being cruel to animals one becomes cruel to human beings." Non-humans count, however, only to the extent that the welfare of human beings is affected.

Although every anthropocentric ethic holds that, morally speaking, only humans can matter, there is wide disagreement about exactly which humans matter. Some anthropocentric views hold that any human creature that has at least the potential to be rational has moral standing. According to this view, a fetus has moral standing. Others hold that only those humans who are already rational count morally. From this perspective a fetus doesn't count. Other anthropocentric views claim that both present and future generations of humans count, while still others argue that only currently existing humans count.

In the eighteenth century the view that only humans count was challenged by several philosophers, including the utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to these philosophers our only moral duty is to maximize pleasure which they claimed is the only fundamental good, and to minimize pain, the only fundamental evil. In making moral decisions, therefore, we have to take into account all creatures, rational or not, that have the capacity to experience pleasure or pain. As Bentham wrote, "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?"

This early view, which extended moral standing to animals, set the stage for the "animal rights" movement. Following in the footsteps of Bentham and Mill, utilitarians in the 1970s began vigorously defending the view that it is as immoral to inflict pain and suffering on animals as on human beings. For humans to fail to recognize the moral standing of animals, they argued, is discrimination on the basis of species and is as wrong as discrimination on the basis of race or sex.

Some defenders of animal rights, however, argue that the welfare of animals matters morally not only for utilitarian reasons, i.e., minimizing pain, but also because animals have moral rights that should not be violated. They claim that the rights of animals are based on the idea that animals have interests, and moral rights exist to protect the interests of any creatures, not merely those of human beings. Others have held that animals have a life of their own deserving of respect. Advocates of animal rights have concluded that in addition to freedom from pain, animals have a right also to protection of their interests or to respectful consideration of their independent lives.

During this century an even broader view of what has moral standing has emerged, one which holds that all living things have moral standing. The most well-known proponent of this view is Albert Schweitzer who claimed that all life merits reverence. More recent philosophers have based their stand on the view mentioned above that anything with interests has moral rights. They point out that all living entities, including plants, have interests, exhibiting certain needs and propensities toward growth and self-preservation. All living entities, therefore, have rights to the protection of their interests and we have an obligation to take their interests into account in our moral deliberations.

Perhaps the broadest view about what counts morally is the view that entire natural systems count. This "ecocentric" view was first put forward by the naturalist Aldo Leopold who argued in favor of a "land ethic" that gives all of nature moral standing. He wrote: "The land ethic... enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land." For Leopold and many others, whole ecological systems, such as lakes, forests, or entire continents, have an "integrity" or a "welfare" of their own that should not be harmed or damaged.

Which of these views on moral standing is correct? The answer we give to this question will depend on the moral importance we attach to rationality, the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, to the interests of all living things, and to the integrity and "welfare" of our ecological systems. A great deal hinges on our answer. If we believe that only humans count, we will not voice strong objections to painful animal experiments that benefit humankind. But if we believe that all sentient creatures have equal moral standing, then we will demand that the welfare of these animals be taken into account, and perhaps lobby for legislation to protect animals from painful experiments or industrial uses. And if we believe that all natural things count, then we may oppose as immoral any activities that threaten to harm our forests and wilderness, such as logging or real estate.

Of course, deciding "who counts" doesn't tell us whose welfare or interests should be given more or less consideration when competing interests are at stake. But it does make us more aware of our boundaries of moral concern, and the criterion we use to establish those boundaries.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V4 N1 (Spring 1991)

Ethical Relativism

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)

Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of "ethical relativism."

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.

Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?

Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.

For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.

But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V5 N2 (Summer 1992)

Consistency and Ethics

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Consistency—the absence of contradictions—has sometimes been called the hallmark of ethics. Ethics is supposed to provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so it must be rational, and to be rational it must be free of contradictions. If a person said, "Open the window but don't open the window," we would be at loss as to what to do; the command is contradictory and thus irrational. In the same way, if our ethical principles and practices lack consistency, we, as rational people, will find ourselves at a loss as to what we ought to do and divided about how we ought to live.

Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

Where are we likely to uncover inconsistency? First, our moral standards may be inconsistent with each other. We discover these inconsistencies by looking at situations in which our standards would require incompatible behaviors. Suppose, for example, that I believe that it is wrong to disobey my employer, and also believe that it is wrong to harm innocent people. Then suppose that one day my employer insists that I work on a project that might cause harm to innocent people. The situation reveals an inconsistency between my moral standards. I can either obey my employer or I can avoid harming innocent people, but I cannot do both. To be consistent, I must modify one or both of these standards by examining the reasons I have for accepting them and weighing these reasons to see which standard is more important and worth retaining and which is less important and in need of modification.

A more important kind of inconsistency is that which can emerge when we apply our moral standards to different situations. To be consistent, we must apply the same moral standards to one situation that we apply to another unless we can show that the two situations differ in relevant ways. I might believe, for example, that I have a right to buy a home in any neighborhood I wish, because I hold that people should be free to live wherever they choose. Yet, I am among the first to oppose the sale of the house next door to a group of mentally retarded persons. But what is the difference between the two situations that justifies this difference in treatment? What is the difference that makes it all right for me to buy a home in any neighborhood, but not them?

There is another sense in which the need for consistency enters into ethics. We might hold consistent moral standards and apply them in consistent ways, but we may fail to be consistent in who we are as individuals. We often use the word "integrity" to refer to people who act in ways that are consistent with their beliefs. Here consistency means that a person's actions are in harmony with his or her inner values. Polonius, a character in Shakespeare's Hamlet, points out--perhaps with some exaggeration--how critical such integrity is to the moral life when he says to his son, Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Consistency in our lives also implies an inner integrity. It may be the case that a person's inner desires are allowed to conflict with each other. For example, a desire to be courageous or honest may be contradicted by a desire to avoid the inconvenience or pain that courage or honesty often requires. Allowing such a conflict is self-defeating because these desires are contradictory. To achieve consistency, we must work to shape our desires to produce a kind of internal harmony.

So central is consistency to ethics that some moralists have held that it is the whole of ethics. They have argued that if people consistently treat all human beings the same, they will always act ethically. Ethical behavior, they argue, is simply a matter of being consistent by extending to all persons the same respect and consideration that we claim for ourselves. The Bible itself seems to imply that ethics consists of nothing more than consistency with the words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you: this is the whole Law and the prophets." (Matt. 7:12) This biblical verse sometimes has been interpreted as meaning that all of morality can be summed up in the requirement to avoid contradictions between what one thinks is appropriate for others and what one thinks is appropriate for oneself.

But is consistency all there is to ethics? We may be perfectly consistent with respect to our moral principles and values, yet our principles may be incorrect and our values misplaced. We may even be consistent in treating others as we treat ourselves, but this kind of consistency would hardly be the mark of a moral life if we happen to treat ourselves poorly.

We might say that while consistency is surely not sufficient for ethics, it is at least necessary for ethics. Ethics requires that there be consistency among our moral standards and in how we apply these standards. Ethics also requires a consistency between our ethical standards and our actions, as well as among our inner desires. Finally, ethics requires that there be consistency between how we treat ourselves and how we treat others.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V1 N4 (Summer 1988)

Conscience and Authority

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Since the Nazi atrocities toward the Jews were discovered at the end of the World War II, people have wondered how so many could have engaged in such obviously unconscionable behaviors. The death camps in which Jews were systematically tortured and killed were efficiently organized and managed by well-trained administrative personnel. These administrators were not extraordinarily vicious savages running amuck. On the contrary, the Germans who ran the death camps seemed to be ordinary "decent" citizens, with consciences no different from those of any of us. How could they have blinded themselves to the clear injustice of what they were doing? More generally, what motivates the unethical acts of ordinarily decent people?

Perhaps one of the most fascinating experiments ever conducted to investigate this moral question is known as the Milgram experiment, after Stanley Milgram, the psychologist who devised the experiment. Subjects in his experiment were told that they were going to take part in exercises designed to test other people's abilities to learn. They were seated at a mock "shock generator" with thirty switches marked from 15 volts ("slight shock") to 450 volts ("danger--severe shock"). Through a small glass window they could see the "learner" in the adjoining room strapped to a chair with electrodes on his or her wrists. The subject was told he or she was to test the other person's ability to memorize lists of words, and to administer a "shock" when the learner made the mistake, increasing the intensity each time. As the intensity of the "shocks" grew, and the learner pretended to cry out in more and more pain, eventually fainting, the experimenter told the subjects they had to continue administering the shocks. Astonishingly, although the subjects grew nervous and agitated, more than two-thirds administered the highest level of shocks to the learners when ordered to do so by the experimenter. Milgram concluded that when people are ordered to do something by someone they view in authority, most will obey even when doing so violates their consciences.

In view of the Milgram experiments, the Nazi crimes are not difficult to understand. Milgram himself suggested that one of the major factors accounting for the Holocaust was the ready propensity of human beings to obey authorities even when obedience is wrong. Indeed, although Milgram's experiment has been repeated dozens of times with many different groups of people, the results are always the same: most people will obey external authority over the dictates of conscience.

Although Milgram's findings are disturbing, more recent research has suggested that obedience to authority over conscience is not inevitable. Indeed, the research of Steven Sherman, also a psychologist, suggests that education can strengthen the power of conscience over authority. Sherman had a colleague contact several people by telephone, ostensibly to "poll" them on their opinions. The "pollster" asked them what they would do if they were ever ordered to perform a certain act that was morally or socially undesirable, and spent some time discussing the issues with them. Several weeks after the contact was made, these same people were actually asked to carry out that act. Surprisingly, two thirds refused to obey the order, a sharp contrast to to Milgram's finding that two thirds of those ordered to act against their conscience would normally obey.

The implication of the Sherman experiment is that if people reflect on a moral issue before they are involved in it, they are more likely to behave in accordance with their consciences when that issue faces them in real life. Moral reflection and discussion of the kind found in the best types of moral education substantially enhance the ethical quality of a person's future choices.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V1 N2 (Winter 1988)

Can Ethics Be Taught?

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal announced that ethics courses are useless because ethics can't be taught. Although few people would turn to the Wall Street Journal as a learned expert on the teaching of ethics, the issue raised by the newspaper is a serious one: Can ethics be taught?

The issue is an old one. Almost 2500 years ago, the philosopher Socrates debated the question with his fellow Athenians. Socrates' position was clear: Ethics consists of knowing what we ought to do, and such knowledge can be taught.

Most psychologists today would agree with Socrates. In an overview of contemporary research in the field of moral development, psychologist James Rest summarized the major findings as follows:

• Dramatic changes occur in young adults in their 20s and 30s in terms of the basic problem-solving strategies they use to deal with ethical issues.
  
  
• These changes are linked to fundamental changes in how a person perceives society and his or her role in society.
  
  
• The extent to which change occurs is associated with the number of years of formal educaton (college or professional school).
  
  
• Deliberate educational attempts (formal curriculum) to influence awareness of moral problems and to influence the reasoning or judgement process have been demonstrated to be effective.
  
  
• Studies indicate that a person's behavior is influenced by his or her moral perception and moral judgements.
  

Much of the research that Rest alludes to was carried on by the late Harvard psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg was one of the first people to look seriously at whether a person's ability to deal with ethical issues can develop in later life and whether education can affect that development.

Kohlberg found that a person's ability to deal with moral issues is not formed all at once. Just as there are stages of growth in physical development, the ability to think morally also develops in stages.

The earliest level of moral development is that of the child, which Kohlberg called the preconventional level. The person at the preconventional level defines right and wrong in terms of what authority figures say is right or wrong or in terms of what results in rewards and punishments. Any parent can verify this. Ask the four or five year old why stealing is wrong, and chances are that they'll respond: "Because daddy or mommy says it's wrong" or "Because you get spanked if you steal." Some people stay at this level all of their lives, continuing to define right and wrong in terms of what authorities say or in terms of reaping rewards or avoiding unpleasant consequences.

The second level of moral development is the level most adolescents reach. Kohlberg called this the conventional level. The adolescent at the conventional level has internalized the norms of those groups among whom he or she lives. For the adolescent, right and wrong are based on group loyalties: loyalties to one's family, loyalties to one's friends, or loyalty to one's nation. If you ask adolescents at this level why something is wrong or why it is right, they will tend to answer in terms of what their families have taught her, what their friends think, or what Americans believe. Many people remain at this level, continuing to define right and wrong in terms of what society believes or what laws require.

But if a person continues to develop morally, he or she will reach what Kohlberg labeled the postconventional level. The person at the postconventional level stops defining right and wrong in terms of group loyalties or norms. Instead, the adult at this level develops moral principles that define right and wrong from a universal point of view. The moral principles of the postconventional person are principles that would appeal to any reasonable person because they take everyone's interest into account. If you ask a person at the postconventional level why something is right or wrong, she will appeal to what promotes or doesn't promote the universal ideals of justice or human rights or human welfare.

Many factors can stimulate a person's growth through the three levels of moral development. One of the most crucial factors, Kohlberg found, is education. Kohlberg discovered that when his subjects took courses in ethics and these courses challenged them to look at issues from a universal point of view, they tended to move upward through the levels. This finding, as Rest points out, has been repeatedly supported by other researchers.

Can ethics be taught? If you look at the hard evidence psychologists have amassed, the answer is yes. If you read the Wall Street Journal, you wouldn't have thought so.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V1 N1 (Fall 1987)

Ethics and Virtue

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

For many of us, the fundamental question of ethics is, "What should I do?" or "How should I act?" Ethics is supposed to provide us with "moral principles" or universal rules that tell us what to do. Many people, for example, read passionate adherents of the moral principle of utilitarianism: "Everyone is obligated to do whatever will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number." Others are just as devoted to the basic principle of Immanuel Kant: "Everyone is obligated to act only in ways that respect the human dignity and moral rights of all persons."

Moral principles like these focus primarily on people's actions and doings. We "apply" them by asking what these principles require of us in particular circumstances, e.g., when considering whether to lie or to commit suicide. We also apply them when we ask what they require of us as professionals, e.g., lawyers, doctors, or business people, or what they require of our social policies and institutions. In the last decade, dozens of ethics centers and programs devoted to "business ethics", "legal ethics", "medical ethics", and "ethics in public policy" have sprung up. These centers are designed to examine the implications moral principles have for our lives.

But are moral principles all that ethics consists of? Critics have rightly claimed that this emphasis on moral principles smacks of a thoughtless and slavish worship of rules, as if the moral life was a matter of scrupulously checking our every action against a table of do's and don'ts. Fortunately, this obsession with principles and rules has been recently challenged by several ethicists who argue that the emphasis on principles ignores a fundamental component of ethics--virtue. These ethicists point our that by focusing on what people should do or how people should act, the "moral principles approach" neglects the more important issue--what people should be. In other words, the fundamental question of ethics is not "What should I do?" but "What kind of person should I be?"

According to "virtue ethics", there are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human beings have the potential to become.
"Virtues" are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

How does a person develop virtues? Virtues are developed through learning and through practice. As the ancient philosopher Aristotle suggested, a person can improve his or her character by practicing self-discipline, while a good character can be corrupted by repeated self-indulgence. Just as the ability to run a marathon develops through much training and practice, so too does our capacity to be fair, to be courageous, or to be compassionate.

Virtues are habits. That is, once they are acquired, they become characteristic of a person. For example, a person who has developed the virtue of generosity is often referred to as a generous person because he or she tends to be generous in all circumstances. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways that are consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.
At the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of "community". A person's character traits are not developed in isolation, but within and by the communities to which he or she belongs, including family, church, school, and other private and public associations. As people grow and mature, their personalities are deeply affected by the values that their communities prize, by the personality traits that their communities encourage, and by the role models that their communities put forth for imitation through traditional stories, fiction, movies, television, and so on. The virtue approach urges us to pay attention to the contours of our communities and the habits of character they encourage and instill.

The moral life, then, is not simply a matter of following moral rules and of learning to apply them to specific situations. The moral life is also a matter of trying to determine the kind of people we should be and of attending to the development of character within our communities and ourselves.
This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V1 N3 (Spring 1988)

Government Ethics

What's OK in a Campaign Blog
Judy Nadler
Focus: Vitriolic posts from a hostile blogger lead a candidate's supporters to counter-attack.


Deep Pockets in the Public Sector
Miriam Schulman
Focus: When should a city defend against litigation, and when should it settle? A look at the ethical issues.


Whom Do I Represent? Local and Regional Public Service
Judy Nadler
Focus: A case study of a councilmember serving on the county transit board


Serving the Greater Good: A Conflict Between Local and State Responsibilities
Judy Nadler
Focus: A case study of a councilmember invited to serve on a statewide task force


Successfully Serving as a City Council Member and a Non-profit Board Member
Robin Lowe, Judy Nadler, Eric Vail
Focus: Three brief cases illustrating conflicts between non-profit and public service


When Doing Good May Be Doing Wrong
Judy Nadler
Focus: Four scenarios on potential conflicts between public service and work with non-profits


Serving Two Masters: Discussion of the Cases

Focus: Responses to cases illustrating conflicts of interest


Setting the Stage for Problems
Roey Rahmil
Focus: Should a public official solicit charitable contributions from businesses that are under his supervision?


Election Irregularities
Roey Rahmil
Focus: A newly elected mayor decides whether to contest a citation for election code violations.


On the Record
Roey Rahmil
Focus: What is a former supervisor's duty to reveal about past poor judgments by a candidate for public office.


Civil Disagreement
Judy Nadler
Focus: A case exploring the limits of public debate


Name Calling on the Council
Judy Nadler
Focus: When the mayor and a councilmember disagree vociferously, is it unacceptable conduct or just the normal rough and tumble of politics?


No Such Thing as a Free Ticket
Judy Nadler
Focus: A case involving a gift to a government official


Political Perk or Part of the Job?
Judy Nadler
Focus: A mayor must decide whether to accept VIP treatment at the ballpark.


Councilmember and the Manager
Judy Nadler
Focus: A city councilmember must decide if he can impartially review the performance of the city manager.


The Case of the Friendly Consultant
Judy Nadler
Focus: A mayor wonders whether a friendly lunch is actually an occasion for lobbying.


Open Meetings: A Case Study
Judy Nadler
Focus: An executive session makes citizens question a city council's decision on rezoning.


The Candidate's Crisis of Conscience
Judy Nadler
Focus: A candidate for city council must decide how frank to be in endorsement interviews.


Campaign Ethics Challenge
Judy Nadler
Focus: A candidate faces a last-minute attack from an opponent.


The Case of the Extra Mile
Kirk O. Hanson
Focus: Ethics case addressing the work-life balance for public employees.


The Case of the Mangled Data
Kirk O. Hanson
Focus: Ethics case addressing the responsibility of public employees to provide accurate information.


Government Ethics Cases for City Finance Directors
Judy Nadler
Focus: Scenarios ask city finance directors to give a red or green light.


Home Run or Foul Ball
Judy Nadler
Focus: What are the ethical issues to consider when a city manager is dealing with city contracts?


Red Light, Green Light
Judy Nadler
Focus: Ten ethical dilemmas facing elected officials.


A Tale of Two Downtowns
Judy Nadler
Focus: How should a Vietnamese-American councilmember balance the needs of his own ethnic group and the needs of other segments of the community?


Alice Hayes and Affordable Housing
Judy Nadler
Focus: A new city councilmember must weigh the community's need for affordable housing with the desire to preserve open space.


Business as Usual
Judy Nadler
Focus: A retired city engineer goes back to work for the city as an independent contractor. When he bids for a job, a councilmember raises questions.


Case of the Big Box Retailer
Judy Nadler
Focus: A revenue shortfall causes a city council to consider the tax benefits from a big-box retailer versus the potential harm to established small businesses.


The Mayor and the Manager
Judy Nadler
Focus: A case exploring the proper relationship between city councilmembers and city staff.


Old Friends and Conflicts of Interest
Judy Nadler
Focus: How do relationships with "old friends" change when someone is elected to public office?


Sex in the City
Judy Nadler
Focus: Is an elected official's personal life legitimately "private"?


The Case of the Sikh Temple
Mark Ralkowski
Focus: Plans for a 94,000 square foot structure raise questions about the zoning of a house of worship.


The Cyber City Network
Thomas Shanks
Focus: An online network for city services raises questions about access and whether the provision of services electronically will increase disparities between rich and poor.

INTRODUCTION

The main aim of this course is to acquaint student with general knowledge of law particularly laws that regulate media practice.

A successful media practitioner is a practitioner that operates under ambit of the law. A media practitioner must know how to legally or rightfully receive and give information. The word legally is used because every individual has his legal right as such media practitioners run the risk of standing trial for offences, sedition, defamation, copyright, contempt of court and parliament and etc.

It is pertinent to note that the public has the right to know the truth of information development. For any country to develop, it must rely on information in and outside its environment.

This course shall expose the student to various legislations that regulate the activities bf the media such laws are to be found in pre-independence enactments, the criminal and penal codes laws passed between 1960-1966 and decrees promulgated by military regimes between 1966 and 1999 and the present 1999 constitution. In addition to the legislations we shall look at the issues of media practitioners and human right reporting.

THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF MEDIA LAW

Law has so many definitions by different people but for the purpose of this course, we shall accept this simple definition of law as a right and duties conferred on individuals living in a particular community for the progress, safety and well being of the human race. In other words, laws are regulations set up or enacted to check or limit the activities of those persons the law covers. Some define law to consist of the laid down rules that guide people’s behaviour in a state, the disobedience of which attracts penalties.

THE PUROSE OF LAW IN THE SOCIETY
(a). Regulation of human conduct
(b) Reconciliation of the interest of the individual to that of the community
(c) Pointing out when interest exist
(d) Man owes his dignity to law
(e) Law initiates changes in economic, political, social and religious structures.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAW
Some of the characteristics are:-
(i) Law is normative in character: It is a norm which tells us what to do and what not to do in order to achieve a particular objective e.g. the rules of criminal law which forbids stealing and the killing of another under certain circumstances are to guarantee security of lives and properties. Journalist invasion of ones privacy can be punished by damages or incurring criminal sanction.

(ii) Rules of law are in a prescribed form, they are generally certain and practicable in character or country.

(iii) Territorial Limitation: Laws are also made to guide the conduct of the people of a particular society or country and are limiting on the people and properties within that territory. This is so even between different communities in the same country for instance the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Act apply in the south while the Code and Criminal Procedure apply in the North.

(iv) The breach of law is enforced by sanction or coercion. This can be done through an organized institution such as the police force, law court, prison etc. It is this element of sanction in law that distinguishes law from other concepts such as ethical rules, convention, morality and etc.

(v) Law is dynamic and not static and that being the case, law changes through the course of history and the content of the law of each society usually changes as the social political and economic world.

(B). INTERNATIONAL LAW: These are laws that are applicable between two different countries. The laws that are applicable within particular countries can be further divided into the following headings depending on the issue and fact of the matter. They are:

(i). PRIVATE LAW: These are laws which deal and regulate the relationship between individual or private matter. These include laws or Tort or (Civil Wrongs). Law of contract, business law, family or matrimonial matters, etc.

(ii). PUBLIC LAW: This is concerned with the relationship between an individual and the rest of the world. Such laws include criminal law, constitutional law, public or international law, etc.

(iii). SUBSTANTIVE LAW: These are laws governing the liabilities of a person in Nigeria for example we have penal code which is applicable in the northern part of Nigeria and criminal code which is applicable in the south.

(iv). ADJECTIVAL LAW: After the substantive law has prescribed the right and liabilities of a person, the adjectival law comes to prelude the procedure or ways it is to be applied.

(iv). CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES: Civil actions deal with cases between an individual with another person while criminal cases are cases against the state. In civil action, the parties are known as the plaintiffs i.e. the person that instituted an action in court. The defendant is the person that is suit. In criminal matter, we have the prosecution (complainant), i.e. the person that alleged a criminal case or charge against another person known as an accused person.

To conclude our discussion on the type of laws, it is important to mention the sources of these Nigeria laws because these provide the law that must be applied to matters. The sources of Nigeria laws are as follows:
(a). Received English Law,
(b). Nigerian Legislation
(c). Nigerian Case Law
(d). Customary Law, and
(e). Islamic Law.

DEFINITION OF MEDIA LAW AND ETHICS

Media law can be defined as laws that regulate the acclivities of the Media. In Nigeria, Media Laws are legislations made by the government in power at the Federal, State, and Local Government levels, to control or regulate the activities of the press in a part or all parts of Nigeria.

There is no country in the world where there are no media or press laws or where the press is not expected to operate within the ambit of the law. However, given the fact that freedom of the press is an essential requirement for democracy, the laws governing the press in the genuinely democratic countries are those which only seek to protect the fundamental rights of individuals and ensure the maintenance of peace and tranquility. Such laws are the laws of defamation, sedition, copyright, plagiarism, privacy, etc.

In the history of Nigeria from the colonial era to the end of military rule in 1999, the following laws were promulgated or established as listed below:

A: As at independence in 1960,
1). The Newspaper Act, 1917.
2). Printing presses, Registration Act, 1933
3). The Criminal Code Act and Schedules thereto insofar at it deals with:
 Sedition: Sections 50 and 51 (secs 416 & 417 of penal code)
 Injurious Falsehood: Section 59 (sec 418 PC)
 Power to Prohibit Importation of Publications: Sec. 58
 Seditious Publication against Foreign Head of State: Sec. 60.
 Contempt of Court: Sec. 6, Criminal Code Act & Sec. 133.

B: Between 1960 and the Coup d’etat of 1966
1). Children and young persons (Harmful publications) Act, 1961.
2). Defamation Act, 1961
3). Emergency Powers Act, 1961
4). Seditious Meeting Act, 1961
5). Obscene publications Act, 1961
6). Official Secrets Act, 1962
7). Newspaper (amendment) Act, 1994

C: Between 1966 and 1979
1). Circulation of Newspaper Decree No. 2, 1966
2). The Defamatory and Offensive Publications Decree No.44, 1966.
3). Newspaper (Prohibition of Circulation) Decree No. 17, 1967.
4). Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No 11, 1976
5). News Agency of Nigeria Decree No.19, 1976
6). Nigeria Television Authority Decree No. 24, 1977
7). Newspaper (prohibition of circulation) (validation) Decree No. 12, 1978
8). Nigeria Press Council Decree No. 31, 1978
9). Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria Decree No. 8, 1979
10). Daily Times of Nigeria (Transfer of certain shares) Decree No. 101, 1979.
11) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (certain consequential Repeals, etc) Decree No. 115, 1979

D: From 1979 to return of the military in Dec. 1983 and beyond
1). Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 1, 1984
2). State Security (Detention of person) Decree No 2, 1984
3). Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree
No 4, 1984
4). The Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Decree No. 13, 1984.
5). Copyright Decree No. 68, 1988
6). Nigeria Media Council Decree No. 59, 1992.
7). Nigeria Press Council Decree No. 85, 1992.
8). National Broadcasting Commission Decree No 38, 1992
9). Treason & Treasonable Offences Decree No. 29, 1993
10). Offensive Publications (proscription) Decree No 35, 1993
11). Newspaper Decree No 43, 1993
12). Newspapers, etc (suspension and prohibition from circulation) Decree No. 48, 1993
13). The Constitution (suspension & modification) Decree No. 107, 1993
14). State Security (Detention of persons) (Amendment) No. 2), Decree 14, 1994.
15). Nigeria Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60, 1999.

E: Constitutional Base of the Press:
Sec 24, 1960 constitution
Sec 25, 1963 constitution
Sec 21 & 36, 1979 constitution
Sec 22 & 38, 1989 constitution
Sec 23 & 40, 1995 Draft constitution
Sec 22 & 39, 1999 constitution

F: Ethical Base of the Press:
• NUJ Code
• Code of the Nigeria Guild of Editors, 1962
• Code of NPO, 1979 adopted officially in Dec., 1992.
• Ilorin Code, 1998
• Nigeria Broadcasting Code, 2002
• Chapter TWO of 1999 Constitution.

Based on the above listed laws our concern here is only the laws which are universally imposed in civilized societies that laws of defamation, sedition, copyright, plagiarism, etc.

(b) Definition of Ethics
Ethics is the branch judgment as to the rightness or wrongness, desirability or undesirability, approval or disapproval of our actions. It is the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.

(c) Definition of Media Ethics
Media ethics means Code of conduct prescribed by the press to guard and protect professionals and of course the profession entirely. Media practitioners had to establish their own code of conduct in order to safeguard themselves from committing any offence against the society and in situations where such offence is committed what are the defenses available to them under the law? Media ethics helps the media professionals to set standards of moral context, what is avertable and unacceptable in the performance of their duties of gathering, processing, and dissemination of a wide varieties of message designed for enlightenment and entertainments.

(c). Distinction between law and ethics.
Law can be regarded as a social control unlike ethics which deals with ideas which are considered to be good by a particular society and ought to be followed. Breach of law results to sanction, sentence and conviction, imprisonment, fine, etc, while ethics is a moral contact which results to warning, suspension, etc.

Law is imposed by the outer society while ethics is self imposed and self-enforced (e.g. by a professional body for its members). Law can expire or be repealed, but ethics is continuous. Law has more foray institutions, such as the legislature, police, judiciary (the courts tribunals, Court –martial, prison, reformatory, etc), but ethics has less formal institutions for its formulation and enforcement. Indeed the chief enforcer of ethics is the conscience.

LAWS REGULATING MEDIA PRACTICE IN NIGERIA

The Law of Privacy
Privacy is defined as the claim of individuals, groups, or instructions, to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.

When the reporter and editor talk about privacy, they speak of their right to print facts that they consider are not or should no longer be private. The most glamorous issues arise in connection with public officials. But the problems in newsrooms more often arise, in connection with private individuals who find themselves the potentials subject of public attention.

The law of privacy is the law that strives to strike a balance between two ends - at one end we have the responsibility of the journalist to inform the public and at the other end the individual right to live are private. The law here protects individual privacy in order to allow persons to enjoy their private life, because the journalist in the course of digging up information to uncover facts exceeds bounds. It is a well known fact that the more an individual attains a high rank, the more limited his privacy.

That is why public figures and top government officials have limited privacy. Hence, the law recognizes those in high offices to have less privacy.
The basic law of privacy invasion has been simply stated below: -

(a). Appropriation of an Individual's name or likeness to advertise another product or promote his business without the consent of the individual constitutes an invasion of privacy.

(b) An uninvited entry into an individual home, or eaves dropping or prying, or trespassing to take pictures, can also constitute an invasion of privacy.

(c). Publicity which places private aspects of an individual in a false light in the public eye creates a cause of action for invasion of privacy somewhat analogous to libel.

(d). Where statements or depictions are humiliating but true (thereby precluding a libel suit) an actionable invasion of privacy may nevertheless be involved where the facts are entered .private (that is, not part of the public record or visible to public scrutiny) and if made public, would outrage the community's notions of decency.

Based from the above basic laws of privacy, a person's privacy can be invaded when one of the following offences is committed by journalists:

(i). Offence of Appropriation: - This means using someone's image without his consent, be it expressly or by implication, e.g. when you use somebody's picture without his consent. Advertisers face this problem. However, when such picture is obtained in public function, then he cannot sue.

(ii). Offence of Placement in False Light: - This is when you attribute to someone else the views, which he does not hold. This happens also if you see somebody's picture wrongly.

(iii). Offence of Physical Instruction: - This is also referred to as unreasonable instruction upon the privacy of a person's life. This can be referred to as trespass in legal term.

(iv) Offence of Public Disclosure: - Bad publicity, given to the life of someone even though you have fact which is true, is an invasion of privacy. It is said that truth has no defence in this case.

(v). Offence of Constitutionality of Source: - The disclosure of a source of information amount to breach of trust and privacy.

(vi). Offence of Conspiracy: - When you agree to work with somebody to perform any, illegal act, then you will be charged with conspiracy e.g., when a journalist and a photographer illegally photograph someone's private life without his consent, then they have invaded his privacy through conspiracy.


DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO JOURNALIST CHARGED
FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY
When a journalist is sued to a court of law for invasion of privacy, the court could accept the following pleas as part of proving one’s innocence.

(a). The right of privacy is the right to be left alone e.g. if someone attracts public attention more invariably sacrifice most of his private life to the public.

(b). Another defence is that, if someone consents or volunteers he cannot complain. This means when you grant the press interview, you should not turn around and sue for invading your private life i.e. in Latin terms means "volenti non fit injuria".

(c). Defence of Public Interest: If you can claim to have disseminated an information based on public interest especially if the information concerns public interest and welfare, his case is not actionable by law.

(d). Defence of Permanent publication: - This right of privacy can only be violated by permanent publication and not by words. This law does not accept rumours and hearsay. However, if a third party is involved, then you can prove your case when your privacy is invaded verbally.

(e). Defence of Newsworthiness: - Public figures are newsworthy because they are always in a news item either in the print or electronic media, they cannot sue if their picture or their statement form a news item.

(II) LAWS OF DEFAMATION
Defamation can be defined as the transmission to a third party, either orally or written, of information which tends to damage the reputation of another person. It is the publication of a statement, which exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, contempt and/or causes him to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of the society.

In the case of Nigerian Television Authority vs Ebenezer Babatope (1996) 6 N.W.L-R (p. 440) 70 at 75, the court held that a defamatory statement is the statement which is published of and concerning a person and calculated to lower him in the estimation of right thinking person or cause him to be shunned, or avoided, contempt or ridicule or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business.

The phraseology right thinking members of the society involved above was equated in meaning to refer to reasonable and not unreasonable members of the society.

Defamation can be at once a civil as well as a criminal act. Criminal defamation is defined both in the criminal and penal codes. Section 373 of the criminal code defines defamation of the matter as matter likely to injure the reputation of any person in this profession or trade. Even a dead person can be defamed according to the law, provided that no prosecution for the publications of defamatory matter concerning a dead person shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation or of the State. Chapter 23, of the Penal Code deals with Defamation sections 391 and 392.

In section 392 of the Penal Code, "whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. Section 375 of Criminal Code provides that any person who publishes any defamatory matter is guilty and liable for imprisonment for one year, and any person who publishes any defamatory matters knowing it to be false is liable to imprisonment for two years.

PROOF OF DEFAMATION
In the case of SKETCH NEWS PAPER, Vs AJAGBEMOKEFERI, the Supreme Court held that for any action of defamation to succeed, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish credible evidence to prove the following:
(a). That the statement was defamatory of the plaintiff
(b) That the defendant referred to the plaintiff
(c) That the defendant actually published the statement complained of and
(d) That the statement conveys a defamatory meaning to those to whom it was published.

TYPES OF DEFAMATION
Since defamation is about defamatory statement made of the plaintiff as understood by members of the society, it means the way and manner it is made; the extent of either coverage and consumption by the society; and the medium used to refer to the words complained of by the plaintiff can easily be adopted to characterize a particular defamation at stake. This will in turn yield the type or types of defamation abound in our jurisprudence. We have two types of defamations:
(a) Libel
(b) Slander

It should be pointed out that a rather loose class has also emerged out of slander. It is called vulgar abuse. Vulgar abuse per se does not constitute slander. Whether or not it amounts to slander generally depends on the circumstances of each case. Vituperation uttered on the heat of quarrel or brawl does not amount to vulgar abuse unless otherwise suggested by the surrounding circumstances. The test for determines the interpretation of vulgar abuse into slander is premiered on the judgment of the hearer of the speaker who construes the vulgar abuse to be defamatory in orientation.

On the contrary, written vulgar abuses automatically qualify as slander because they were first meditated and rehearsed before uttered.

DEFINITION OF LIBEL AND SLANDER
In law, libel can be defined as everything printed or written which reflects on the character of another, and is published without lawful justification or excuse is a libel, whatever the intention may have been.

On the other hand, slander is a false and defamatory statement concerning a person made by word of mouth or in other transient form.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBEL AND SLANDER
a. Slander is a defamatory matter conveyed in a transient manner
b. Slander is made by words and gestures only
c. Slander is a business for the 'ear' to conceive and comprehend.
d. Slander is not actionable per se except in some few cases.

Whereas:
a. Libel is a defamatory matter conveyed in a permanent form
b. Libel is made in writing or conveying through signs, films, effigy, picture, cartoons or photographs.
c. Libel is actionable per se.

DEFENCES TO A CHARGE OF DEFAMATION
A defendant who was alleged by the plaintiff to have defamed his character whether through libel or, slander can challenge and battle the rebuttal of such an allegation by way of defences.

These defences have the effect of impeaching the intent of defamatory matter complained of and hence render nugatory and hollow the substance of the action against the defendant. Either or all of these defences have the efficacy of exculpating the defendant of defamatory liability.

These defences are enumerated hereunder:
(a). Absolute privilege
(b). Fair comment
(c). Justification; and
(d). Qualification privilege

Apart from the above defences that are more popular and easily enforced, another defence appears to be emerging. It is referred to as the defence of innocence.

The defence of innocence generally avail newspaper vendors, booksellers and libraries whose main thrust of business is disseminating information materials. If therefore in the course of their business, they got involved in disseminating libelous defamatory matters, they can raise the defence of innocence.
Claiming among other things that:
i. They are ignorant of the libelous matter at the time of their business.
ii. They are not ordinarily negligent in not discovering the alleged libelous matters in the normal cause of dissemination.

The burden of proof therefore is on the defendant to lay evidence in order to prove his ignorance to the libel and lack of negligence in not discovering the libel.

As for the popular defences, an explanation now follows:

a. The Defence of Absolute Privilege - This defence is usually in order not to inhibit free discussion without fear or favour on matters of public interest or policy. It is employed where defamatory matter is alleged in proceedings of Court of Law or Legislative Houses. Where therefore the defendant was alleged to have defamed the plaintiff in the event of the plaintiff’s contribution in proceeding in Court or Legislative House the appropriate defence against the defamation complained about the defence of absolute privilege. It is a complete defence to defamation. The same view was held in the case against Punch (Nig) Ltd. The court held that:

“A fair and absolute report in newspaper or proceedings held before any court exercising judicial authority if published contemporaneously with the proceedings is absolutely privilege”

b. The Defence of Fair Comment – On the strength of the fact that right of expression habours “the principle that debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, there develops in all civilized societies the need to raise fair comment and honest criticism on matters of public interest and governance”. This is necessary and indispensable for the efficient working of any public institution or office.

Therefore, an action or defamation could successfully be defended by a plea raised by the defendant, that the defamatory matter alleged was only a personal contribution in the course of fair comments on public issues. The defence of fair comment is an inherent right for all.

The onus is on the defendant to prove that:
a. There was a matter of public interest in favour of which the defendant passed a comment.
b. That the facts which prompted the defendant’s commentaries are premised on truth.
c. That the comment on the fact is true.

For there to be fair comment, the whole exercise must revolve on facts not laced with inference of other motives of dishonourable nature nor must it be an insincere expression on the part of the defendant.

c. The Defence of Truth and Justification – Generally speaking, the defence of truth and justification possessed inescapable semblance with the defence of fair comment discussed above. The two are pivoted on facts and truth and for the same reason, overlap one another. The defence of justification is of the opinion that no allegation of defamatory matter shall subsist where the defendant maintains that the defamation is true and justifiable in that regard. This was the view expressed in Iwuoha vs Okoroike, where it was held that:

“A plea of justification means that the words were true and the plea covers not only the bear statements of facts in the alleged libel but also any imputation which the word in their context may be taken to convey”.

d. The Defence of Qualified Privilege – If truth is to be told on matters of general interests to the society, the daring members of the society in that escapade should be accorded protection and security. Otherwise, baseless and unfounded actions of defamation would be slumped indiscriminately against them and hence the society would be without necessary checks and balance.

It is to extol these virtues and reinforce sanity in the society that the defence of qualified privilege was propounded to avail persons in our society who in the quest of commentaries on the welfare of the society were alleged to have committed defamation. The defence of qualified privilege is wider than that of fair comment or justification in the sense that:

“In general, an action lies for the malicious publication of statements which are false in fact, and injurious to the character of another, and the law considers such publication as malicious, unless fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases, the occasion prevents the inference of malice, which the law draws from unauthorized communications, and affords a qualified defence depending on the absence of actual malice. If fairly warranted by any reasonable occasions or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the common convenience and welfare of society”.

The defence of qualified privilege could be resorted to general where the defamatory matter complained or relates to those statements made in self- defence or in the performance of public obligation, be it moral or legal; or statement of legislative or judicial proceedings, etc.

Notwithstanding, the clear cut defence afforded to the defendant in a case of defamation as adumbrated above, it should be stressed also that the following though not really defences, properly so called, yet produced an effect almost akin to the defence proper. They jointly or severally support the defendant that the action of defamation against him is either not heard or be struck out before the adjudicating court. Sometime, they helped in mitigating cost of damages as may be awarded against the defendant tortfeasor by the adjudicating tribunal.


They include:
1. Plea of res judicata successfully raised by the defendant. Thereafter the suit terminates as between the parties since it was presumed to have been resolved intra parties by a preceding valid suit.
2. By the death of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
3. By a published corrigendum or apology retracting or correcting the alleged defamatory matter.
4. By the application of volentia non-fit injuria. That is to say, the plaintiff consented to the injury caused by the defamatory matter of the defendant. Therefore assumed the accompanying risk.
5. Delay in bringing the action before a court of competent jurisdiction so much so that the action becomes statue barred.

SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED
1. Who can be defamed? Any living person can be defamed. To publish that the former President of the Senate Chief Evan Enwerem is dead is not defamatory of Enwerem.

2. Who is legally responsible for defamatory statement? Technically everyone who participates in the particular exercise - reporter, sub-editor, editor, publisher, vendor, etc. As a practical matter, however, suits are usually brought against the corporate entity though individuals are sometimes, also named as defendants.

3. Can a newspaper or radio or television station be held liable for simply repeating or quoting a defamatory statement made by someone else? Yes, you do not automatically avoid liability by quoting someone else.

4. Must an action for libel originate where the medium is printed? Not necessarily. Publication in actions for defamation means communication to a party other than the person defamed. A newspaper is published where it is read. Thus the Guardian is published in Sokoto and Auchi and Calaber and Yola, although all the copies are printed in Lagos, anyone affected by a news story in the Guardian can go to court where he read the story and can call witnesses from any place of his choice to ground the fact of publication. But, what of broadcasting? It is not difficult to say that publication can only be said to be also at the place of the reception of the broadcast. Broadcasting, we are told by those who are experts, are accomplished by the generation at the broadcasting station of electro-magnetic waves, which pass through space to receiving instruments which amplify them and translate them into audible sound waves.

The essential elements in the broadcasting operation are a supply of electrical energy transmitter, the connecting medium of “either between the transmission and receiving mechanism”. The listener or viewer has a receiving mechanism called a radio set or a television set. Publication takes place therefore in the listener’s or viewer’s home.

The extent of the publication is therefore a function of the reach of the radio or television station. If the farthest NTA Channel 5 can go is Ogun State, then anybody suing can originate the action in a competent court in Ogun State and so Ogun State Law of Defamation will apply.

As I have already told you, the Defamation Act we have referred to, is a Federal Law which has been operative in Lagos. When the Federal Government moved to Abuja in December, 1992, the 1961 Defamation Act became there (in Abuja) the law in operation in Lagos State. Thus, the Defamation Act is, by and large, the same Act by different names in various States.

5. What is the place of libel vis-à-vis political broadcast? Just as a newspaper is liable for what it published.

LAW OF SEDITION
The after cited definition for sedition is one couched by Fitzgerald J in RV. Sullivan (1886) 11 co- cc 44. He described sedition in the following words:
“Sedition is a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason and it frequently pre cases treason by a short interval… Is a comprehensive term and it embraces all those practices, whether by word, clust or writing are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state and lead against person to endeavor to subvert the Government and the Laws of the ethic”.

Under the Nigeria Criminal Law, sedition is define under section 50 (1) of the Criminal Code (applicable to southern 14, geris) defines a seditious publication as a publication having a seditious intention. And section 50 (2) defines seditious intention as an intention:
(a). To bring in hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of the Head of the Federal Government, the Governor of a State, or the Government or Constitution of Nigeria or a State as by law established or against the administration of justice in Nigeria or,
(b). To excite Nigerians to attempt to power the alteration, after wise than by lawfully means, or any other matter in Nigeria as by law established, or
(c). To raise discontentment or disaffection among the inhabitants of Nigeria, or
(d). To promote feelings or ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Nigeria.

A computable provision can be found under section 416 of the Northern Nigeria Penal Code Law. The section provides:
“Whoever by words, either spoken or reproduced by metical means or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise excites or attempts to excite facings of disaffection against the person of, her majesty, her heirs or successors or the person of the Governor-General or Constitution of the United Kingdom or Nigeria or any Nigeria there of or against the ministration of Justice in Nigeria or any regions thereof shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or between both”.

From the above statutory provisions, sedition can generally be defined as any statement as representation which has the intention to stir up treason, defame the person of the Head of State or Governor of a State or incited one section of the population against another.

The objects of the law of sedition are, to induce and insurrection and stir up opposition to the Government and bring the administration of justice into contempt, and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. In a nutshell, it has the effect of:
(i). Invigorating public disturbance
(ii). Ignite civic/war
(iii). Cast hatred or disaffection to the government
(iv). Subvert obedience to the constitution when therefore any write-up or speech or any dehisce of communication, whether by sign, tapes, caricature, etc, that has the effect of promoting any of the above, such a write-up, not withstanding the Constitution to sedition.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF LAW OF SEDITION
The student must understand aspects law of sedition:
(a). Seditious conspiracy;
(b). Seditious libel;
(c). Seditious speech;
(d). Who may be convicted for sedition;
(e). Is the law of sedition still relevant?
(f). Constitutional basis of the law of sedition.

(a). Seditious Conspiracy: - This is the agreement or plan by two or more persons, to overthrow or put down by unlawful means or to destroy by force the Government of the country or State.

(b). Seditious Libel: - This is any communication in written or any other permanent form which has the intention to incite people to change the Government by unlawful means or which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or which advocates the destruction of the State.

(c). Seditious Speech: - This is any speech which advocates the over-throw of the government or its destruction by force.

(d). Who may be convicted for Sedition? Section 51 of the Criminal Code makes the following persons liable for sedition:
Anyone who does a seditious act or takes part in the preparation or conspires with others to commit sedition or utters seditious words. Also liable are printers, publishes, distributors, vendors, reproducers and importers of seditious publications.

(e). Is the law of sedition still relevant in the present democratic dispensation? It has been noted that the Law was one of the first press laws enacted by the British colonial administration in the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria to check rising press criticism. Many journalists and nationalists of that era were as a result jailed and newspapers heavily fined. On the attainment of independence, therefore, the nationalists had expected that such obnoxious laws would be expunged from the statutes.

Indeed, some progressive judges had that such laws had no place in an independent Nigeria. But 50 years after, the law still occupies a prominent place in the statutes.

Those against the retention of the law of sedition point out that it denies people their fundamental human rights of free expression, violates the right to criticize government and denies the people their right to self determination. They argue further that the Law of Sedition could be misused by a dictator to overreach himself thereby retarding the growth of democracy and development.

But those who support the retention of the Law of Sedition present a counter argument. They argue that the law of sedition is aimed at protecting the government and its institutions which are established by law to serve the Nigerian people. Without such a law, acts of treason, such as incitement to riots, destruction of public property and enthronement of anarchy could be perpetuated by lawless people to the detriment of the State. While arguing that the right to free expression is not absolute, they insist that such right impose a corresponding duty on the citizens to respect constituted authority and stay within the provisions of the law.

This issue of whether the Law of Sedition is still relevant or not in Nigeria was said to in the case of Nwankwo Vs the State, Innocent Adikwu Vs House of Representatives. In these cases, the right of expression and press freedom was expanded to include relevant and caustic remark against government and public officers which conduct the public feels to commend or condemn.

DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO JOURNALISTS IN A CHARGE OF SEDITION
1. The publication was made to amend some error in the government.