Unraveling Thomas Raven - Essay Example

Unraveling Thomas Raven Introduction Thomas Raven, 54 years old, a current member of the Regional Council of Cairns and a reputable member of the Australian Greens party, has been alleged to falsify public documents to push his personal interests. The council member was divorced and has two children from his first marriage and a daughter from his second marriage. The two divorces were filed under the same grounds – cruelty and adultery. Maria Ross, the first wife, filed the case on October of 1996, and mentioned frequent losses in gambling as the main cause for the physical and emotional abuse she got from her husband. Two major contracts of sugarcane milling giant Shilling & Masterson were approved without public bidding in 2001 when Raven was still the deputy director of the agency that approves public contracts in Cairns. A Cassandra Sherman filed a complaint against Raven and the Higher Court of Cairns is currently holding the case. A reliable source from the Hyatt Casino says that Raven lost more than AU$20, 000 in the previous months and has been on the losing streak before the serious allegation went public. (The article will be printed along with a caricature of the politician depicting him as a crocodile that eats people’s money while sitting on a poker table holding his losing cards with slot machines all around him. The words “greed”, “public contracts”, “womanizing”, and “luxurious gambling” should appear next to his caricature). Importance of Freedom of Speech Western societies give heavy weight on the freedom of speech and expression. Governments around the world give enough space for free speech in their societies that socio-cultural perspectives that restricts free speech are restricted or moderated to allow free speech and expression to flow in every society. Freedom is loosely defined as the absence of any form of interference from authorities in acting one’s desires. The unequal distribution of freedom has changed over time to accommodate social equity. Social equity, as earlier political theorists claim, can only be achieved with a form of common authority, or government. The massive change brought about by social revolution and economic progress has also changed the way people define freedom. Because of the existence of a central governing body, freedom could not be defined without including the government. Thus then, the following questions arise. What constitutes man’s freedom? Is there any boundary to man’s liberty in thoughts, actions, and words? At what extent can man exercise freedom without being interfered by any social authority? Governing bodies in any form of societies have been created to limit the individual pursuit of power – physically or politically – and distribute equality among men. In the same manner, the government exist to protect the individual freedom from being corrupted and is required to use everything within its power to ensure that everyone in the society have the same degree of access to freedom and liberty. From this, we can see that Australian government exercised its full power to limit and restrict individual rights to free speech in order to protect individual freedom from being corrupted. Any free society desires to have its right to free speech unobstructed. Free speech in a free society is a tool that can be used by individuals to express their angst against the government particularly if the concern relates to public interest (Cooray 1997). People running for public office give up their private lives and open their personal information for public scrutiny. In the same manner, they do not have the right to sue individuals or corporations for defamation simply because of the implied responsibility of being a public officer. Apparently, this does not happen in Australian domains. Defamation Act of 2005 is very clear about its protection to the defamed parties where it says that it aims to “… provide effective and fair remedies for persons whose reputations are harmed by publishing defamatory matter …” Defamation Act of 2005 also abolishes the distinction between slander and libel and considers them defamation regardless of the nature of the offense. From this alone, it is easy to conclude that publication of the article above which is, on the context of the definition of defamation, slanderous and harmful to the reputation of the political figure can result to serious defamation case where implied freedom of speech could not be taken as a counter-argument for this particular case. Freedom of Speech in Australia If the article above will be published in any Australian newspaper, the writer may face serious charge of defamation on the grounds that (a) Australian Constitution has no provision for the freedom of speech and expression, (b) the statements and the caricature are defamatory, and (c) the writer could not use implied freedom of speech as a defense for slanderous publication which in turn may send the writer to jail. The details of these grounds are expounded in the following discussions. Publishing the article as is may pose serious problems for the investigative journalist because journalists in Australia do not enjoy the same degree of freedom of speech journalists from other parts of the world do. This is because the Australian Constitution has no expressed provision of the protection of the freedom of speech and thus the Commonwealth Parliament may censure or restrict any speech or publication unless otherwise specified in the Australian Constitution (Jordan 2002). This means that publishing strong negative and unfounded statements in the local and/or national newspaper poses serious legal problems for the writer because the law could not protect the writer using the non-existent provisions for freedom of speech in the Australian Constitution. Unlike Australia, the United States of America has been more apt in protecting the freedom of speech and expression of their people (in general, and journalists in particular) by institutionalizing various laws and policies that promotes the protection of individual rights of expression. Some of these laws are the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The United Nation has also put enough assertion on the rights of the journalists to express their opinion and impart it to the public through any media without interference from the government or any powerful body as long as it is within the ethical and legal boundaries of their duties (OHCHR, 2005). Apparently, journalists in Australia does not enjoy the same set of freedom so printing a sensitive allegation such as the one appearing in the article may constitute defamation and the writer may find himself or herself as a defendant of a hard-to-win defamation case. The Defamatory Article As was mention, the writer will most likely be charged of defamation for this tenor of paper. Defamation occurs when there is an act of communicating false and unprivileged statement of words, photographs, illustrations, and videos which may damage the reputation of another person (ADL n.d.). This definition shows that there are two factors that constitute a defamatory statement – a false statement and an unprivileged statement. The article above is not entirely true because there are no evidences that would point to Thomas Raven and the falsified document. On the other hand, the article is not entirely false either because what were written in the article are unrelated facts that are grouped and pieced together through investigative journalism. However, the tenor with which the information was delivered suggests that Raven did everything that the writer has found out and the article makes it appear that he already is guilty of the act even before they are proven. Although majority of the information gathered about Thomas Raven are most-likely true, the writer will be making an unprivileged statement if he would not be able to substantiate the claims presented in this article. And this scenario brings us back to square one – journalists in Australia do not get the necessary protection from the Australian Constitution when it comes to their freedom of speech and expression (APC 2007). Australian Constitution does not only lack the provision for freedom of speech but it has also allowed its government to act to prevent freedom of speech in particular circumstances. This can be seen on various State and Territory defamation laws and censorship laws instituted by the Australian government within its domain (Williams 2000 p. 35). Earning a defamation case publishing this article is as very easy considering that Australian Constitution through the Australian government has less tolerance to slanderous and defamatory publications. This realistic scenario is very disturbing under the principles of freedom of speech which means to say that there are serious moral issues that might come if freedom of speech and expression will be held in accordance to what the government view as appropriate. Contempt of Court While there are no laws and State regulations that prohibit the insult of political figures (APC 2007) the writer of the article may be tried for contempt of court. The Freedom of Information Act of 1982 allows the public to access documents held by the government and its agencies unless the document falls under the exempt categories which include documents (a) that may affect national security, (b) international relations, (c) defense, (d) enforcement of the law, (e) personal privacy and commercial secrecy, and (f) internal working documents among others. In the same manner, publications that make public the lifestyle of defendants that may sway the jury’s decision and reporting of court proceedings in defiance of court order can be held in contempt of the court. The article mentioned about the lifestyle of Raven as well as his involvement in the case under public trial. By virtue of the Australian laws and public regulation, the writer can be tried at court for contempt of court. Conclusion There is a need to worry about the legal issues involved in the publication of the article written above especially since the article is defaming in nature and has some serious transgression of the Australian laws and policies concerning publication of sensitive information. There is no point judging Australian law concerning freedom of speech and expression and the best option left for the writer (and the publisher) is to rewrite the article according to what the law prescribed in order to avoid unnecessary censure and legal struggle with any Australian courts. References Australian Defamation Lawyers. Homepage. Accessed on March 14, 2009 from http://www.australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au/ Australian Press Council. 2007. Press Law in Australia. The Media and the Law. Accessed on March 15, 2009 from http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html Cooray, Mark. 1997. Freedom of Speech and Expression. Accessed on March 15, 2009 from http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap6.htm#6.3 Defamation Act of 2005. Online Version. Accessed on March 15, 2009 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/da2005n77126.pdf Jordan, Roy. (4 June 2002). Free Speech and the Constitution. Law and Bills Digest Group. Research Note No. 42 2001-02. Accessed on March 14, 2009 from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm Office of the Higher Commission of Human Rights. 2005. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Accessed on March 15, 2009 from http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm Williams, George. 2000A Bill of Rights for Australia, University of NSW Press, Sydney. Read More