+1-817-968-5551
+61-488-839-671
+44-7480-542904About Expert
Key Topics
Requirement
The module-based learning problems address the core material covered in each module in the textbook, lectures and other readings and learning
experiences. They are designed around a scenario in each module and you are required to draft and submit a 600 word response to the questions
asked and issues raised in relation to each scenario.
Typically, you should use your 600 words for each of the three problems to answer these questions:
a. What are the main media law issues that arise in this scenario?
b. Explain briefly how those laws and possible defences might apply.
c. What cases / examples / legislation are relevant to this situation?
d. Assuming your goal is to try to publish as much of the material as is legally allowable, what course of action would you recommend for the journalist or publisher in this situation and why?
You are required to discuss the problems each week on the Discussion Board section of the Media Law site. The problems are designed to showcase the key legal knowledge and principles underpinning the course and the module questions will prepare you for your responses to the problems in Modules 4 and 5 and in the final take-home exam. This portfolio of your learning problem responses from Modules 1-3 ensures you are on track with their completion and that your preparation is on track for your exam.
Scenario – 1:
The freedom of speech in Australia is not free as everyone think of it. The Constitution of Australia grants freedom of political speech. The freedom of political speech entitles citizen of country to make positive as well as negative comment over political decision. The freedom of speech regarding political comment is important pillar of free expression. In this context it is important to note that the scope of right of freedom of expression particularly political comments is not wider as one have thought of it. The person working in the government department has more burdens in this context. It is true to say that the right allows free expression of political views and working of government; it must be exercised with due care. Irresponsible comment may attract legal consequences. The political comment is also subject o defamatory law hence care must be taken to avoid any legal issue under defamation law.
In context of comment by PR office of the government organization, the main medial law issue arises is of defamation, suit for damages for loss of reputation and right of freedom of expression of political communication under Constitution.
If you are a student and in need of assignment assistance, you can contact Allassignmenthelp.com directly. We have talented experts on our website who can provide students with quality assignment help. Whether you need law essay help or constitutional law assignment help, we can assist you with all kinds of assignment writing.
The Australian Constitution grants right to make free political comments and restrict legislature to enact any law limiting this right. The comment made against government can be taken under freedom to express political communication. The comment posted by person relates with the political affairs. It relates with policies implemented by government. Thus, it can be considered as political communication notwithstanding anything that comment is in favour or criticizing government policies. This can be considered as comments made in exercise of right to have free political freedom. This can be taken as defence. However there are many court precedents which may operate against the right to express free political communication.
It is important to note that person working under government department is under obligation to follow rules and regulation. He must take reasonable care that his efforts do not harm government adversely.
In Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corp, court has considered issue relating to freedom of political comment in depth. The court held that the right to express political view must be viewed in broader sense. The court pointed out that the right is personal right; constitution does not grant a personal right to freedom of political communication that an individual can exercise. The constitution; rather provides restriction on legislative action that may curtails freedom of political communication. It cannot override person obligation that a men is obliged to due under some statues or code of conduct. The same was then adopted in Gaynor v Chief of the Defence Force. This makes it clear that government employees are under obligation to honour their code of conduct first and they cannot take shelter of freedom of expression to cover their breach of duty.
In this it is recommended that the any political communication cannot be made in personal capacity. The analysis of court decision revels that the right of free expression of political communication is not personal makes it clear that any political comment having adverse affect on government can be taken as ground to initiate legal action against person making it. However, the language used in the comment must be decent in manner and it should not be defamatory. It can be healthy critics of government policies. This may help journalist to publish as much material as possible.
Scenario – 2:
Reporting of judicial trail and criminal incidence requires grate care. The news regarding any criminal incidence and its judicial progress needs to be reported with great care so as to avoid any legal consequences. Care must be taken for online comments of reviewers.
In case of reporting of case, relevant media law issues are the extent to which reporting will be considered as fair and just and possibility of to be sued for contempt of court. The reporting of any matter under justice requires due care. The reporting of criminal offence majorly involves description regarding crime and its judicial progress, many times the information published by media house may create hurdle in fair judicial process. This may create legal issue for media house. This is because once the judicial process starts the matter becomes sub judicial in nature. In case if publication of any article by publisher had a tendency, as a matter of practical reality, to prejudice the fair trial of accused beyond the reasonable doubt than it may create issue regarding contempt of court.
In R v. Hinch, court held that the publication of any article must be of the nature that will not affect the fair trail of accused person. The term sub judice can be defined as any word or action which interfere with the proper administration of justice or constitute a disregard for the authority of the court. Disclosure of identity of accused, witnesses and victims may interfere judicial process adversely. The care should be taken regarding identity of accused, witnesses and victims and important information regarding investigation progress.
In the given scenario, there is identification of victim, accused and report of some confidential facts. It also includes details about evidence collected, admission made and statement of accused person; this may create legal problems for the organization. The report under scenario has also disclosed back ground of accused and assumption regarding his guilt. This may again go against publication house. Any publication which detracting from the authority and has capacity to influence judicial determination will be considered as contempt of court. This will be considered as an offence for which publication house can be penalized.
The probable defense in this situation will be fair and accurate reporting and concept of open court justice. The High Court has many times held that the court procedure must be under public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle. The term fair and accurate reporting refers to reporting of bare facts and maintaining secrecy of identity of certain person. In Hogan v Hinch court held that the fair reporting cannot be viewed as hurdle in judicial process. The court has observed that right to publish a report of proceedings is a corollary of the right to attend and observe them. However, in many court proceedings court has found media reports interfering with fair justice and publishers were penalized for its inexperienced media reports. The concept of open justice cannot be considered as action creating hurdles in court proceeding can be best defence for reporting of sub judice matter.
In order to publish media report on criminal incidences it is recommended that the care must be taken about pendency of matter before court. More care must be taken for matter which is sub judicial in nature. The report should only include bare facts regarding crime. The reporting of crime relating to sexual offence and child must be made with almost due care; and media house needs to ensure that no identification of victim must be given. The report must not include statement about assumption regarding guilt or innocence. The identity of witnesses must be kept secret. This will help publisher to publish material as much as possible.
Scenario – 3:
The freedom of speech in Australia is not free as everyone think of it. The Constitution of Australia grants freedom of political speech but there are many defamation laws and precedent which puts limitation of freedom of speech. The review placed on website is also under legal watch.
The care must be taken while writing negative review on internet. It should be noted that media law creates an obligations of service provider to ensure the quality of review.
In case of online review, the possible medial law issues those might arises includes suit of defamation for scathing review or suit for Injurious falsehood.
The term defamation means any speech whether orally or in written form that harms the reputation of other party. Thus, any negative review regarding any entity that may affect its reputation or business comes under risk of defamation.
In case if statement made by person affects the goods or business of person, the aggrieved person may sue other for Injurious falsehood.
It is important to note that the defamation sustain in the court of law only if it satisfies following criteria:
-
1. There must be statement capable of affecting reputation of other person.
-
2. The plaintiff must be identifiable.
-
3. The statement must be published.
In context of review Fisherman’s Lodge, it can be said that the review fulfils all conditions of defamatory statement.
-
1. There exists negative review of website; which has capacity to affect reputation of person. This review contains negative information about the Fisherman’s Lodge and this may affect business reputation of entity. As it can affect business of Fisherman’s Lodge, it may initiate legal action for Fisherman’s Lodge.
-
2. The plaintiff i.e. Fisherman’s Lodge is identifiable.
-
3. The statement was published on internet.
Thus, the statement comes under the preview of defamation law and capable of being sued.
In Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton, court held that if the statement made was tends to lower someone in the estimation of right-thinking people that it can be said that the statement is defamatory material. In Mickle v Farley court found that any comment on social media which may affect reputation of plaintiff comes under preview of defamation.
The defamation law provides for some defenses which may be helpful to defend suit of defamation. According to law; following cannot be sued under law of defamation:
-
1. Companies employing 10 or more people
-
2. Government authorities / councils
-
3. If defendant provides that the information was given with the intention to publish and not to defame.
-
4. In case of Innocent dissemination by newspaper, Internet service providers and major SM platforms.
Thus, as ISP, website owner can argue that there cannot be any responsibility for the post or comment by its user as it is innocent publication.
However In its recent judgment, Supreme Court of Victoria and in case of ACCC v. Allergy Pathway federal court held that in case of internet service provider, news paper and other publisher, they can be sued either as primary publisher or subordinate publisher. They must examine the content posted by the clients. In case if publisher failed to take reasonable care to prevent publication or to exercise effective control over publication, it can be held responsible. The court further held that the when entity acquires knowledge of defamatory comment or has reason to believe than it is obliged to remove content from the website failing to which it can be sued for defamation as subordinate publisher.
In the given scenario as website “True Blue Reviews” comes to know that both comment are from same IP address and of which one is defamatory giving indirect advantage to other, it must remove comment immediately.
It is recommended that website must arrange for review of comments made by public continually to take shelter of innocent publication.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your OrderReference:
-
Dismissal and free speech: Full Federal Court considers implied right in employment context - Knowledge - Clayton Utz. (2018). Claytonutz.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2017/may/dismissal-and-free-speech-full-federal-court-considers-implied-right-in-employment-context
-
Chief of the Defence Force v Gaynor [2017] FCAFC 41 (8 March 2017). (2018). Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/41.html
-
Chief of the Defence Force v Gaynor [2017] FCAFC 41 (8 March 2017). (2018). Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/41.html
-
ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2011] FCA 74 | Lexology. (2018). Lexology.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ba588d64-006e-42bf-8930-7d9a5f54be15
-
Unknown, (2018). Scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=wlulr
Give your grades a boost
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
-
1,168,768 Orders
-
4.9/5 Overall Rating
-
5,052 Experts
