Application of Law of Communication in Australia - Essay Example

APPLICATION OF LAW OF COMMUNICATION IN AUSTRALIA Name Name of the institution 1 October 2015 In any nation across the globe, communication law is set to govern and regulate broadcasting of any material that is related to the media. The law has been highly pertained in the electronic communication. In Australia, media is regulated or rather controlled through various sources. 1These sources include legislation and as well as the conduct of conduct. In Australia, the media people have limited freedom of speech or communication. More so, the high court has set definite freedom regarding political communication in Australia. In other word, the people who work in the media in the Australia are bounded to enjoy a broad freedom of communication. Therefore, for competence and appropriateness in the communication sector, the Australian government has set up the communication act that is supposed to guide journalist. In the act, there is the outline of freedom of the journalists. Importantly, the act has highlighted the reason why it is necessary for the journalist to be given their rights. As such, this paper focuses on discussing the application of law of the communication and the guidelines that journalism are supposed to follow in carrying out their duties. Part 1a) - Defamation in the case of Larry and Ella Defamation can be described as the case whereby the statement of a person affects the reputation of another person. (Kenyon, 2010) 2Defamation can be in the form of communication or written. In Australia, the person who has been defamed is granted the right to sue the person who has caused defaming. In legal terms, defamation is not a law-breaking task but the act is described as a civil act that wrong top the party involved. Basing it on the template discussed, Larry has defamed Ella as he violates the law of communication. The committed written defamation, as the article that he wrote, was intended to hurt the reputation of Ella (Kenyon, A. 2010). This can be demonstrated through conducting defamation test. The test for defamation involves three steps. First, in testing defamation one should put into consideration the published materials. In the case of Larry and Ella, materials containing defaming writing has been published electronically. In this step, of testing defamation, the individual who is liable to defaming issue is identified. The next step used in testing defamation is usually identification of the person affected by the material published. In this stage, identification of the plaintiff is done. Usually, by identifying his/her name or by physical appearance. More so, the material published may relate to a collection of individuals. In the law of defamation, a group of people cannot sue a person. In most cases, if the material published defame a group, one person may volunteer and sue the individual causing defamation. The volunteered member can do so only if he/she is directly involved in defamation or rather identified as the victim of defamation. The last step that is used in testing the existence of defamation is the identification of the matter of defamatory. In this case, the material is tested how it affect the reputation of the complainant. More so, in this stage the status of the accuser is tested in the base of how people think of the person affected by the defamatory action. In addition, the material is tested whether it affect the life of the complaint in the society. As such, if the material make people avoid the complaint, hate him/her, or as a result, of the material the accuser is treated in a different manner, then the material can be viewed as a cause of defamation. However, reflecting on the case Larry can be defended. In this context, an editor has a full defense if the published material is significantly truth. The material published by Larry presented the word that Ella spoke to him hence it is the entire truth. 3Moreover, the case of Larry and Ella has raised a jurisdictional issue in relation to communication law. As such, one key jurisdictional issue that raised by the case is the issue of imputation. In defamation, imputation is necessary conducted by the affected person. This means that Ella has the jurisdiction to accuse or sue Larry with the case of defaming. Part 1 b)-Has Larry committed scandalizing contempt by publishing his article? Basically, the law of 4defamation is concerned with punishing for telling lies about other persons. As the template suggest, Larry did not commit a horrifying act by publishing the article. In support to this, the lawmakers in Australia clear indicated that the defendant in the situation of defamation is obliged to enjoy a wholesome defense if the article published is considerably true. More so, in some cases, defamation is regarded to as a comment that is intended to keep the public educated. In this situation, Larry may have an essential defense and may influence the ruling of the case. Furthermore, as a result of Larry’s act, he can encounter negative consequences. As a result, Larry may undergo financial harm. Due to the act of defaming Larry may lose his job. In addition, he may lose finances due to the expenses that he will incur as Ella, will take the next step of clearing her reputation. The step of cleaning her reputation will be an essential action because Ella will become gain a competitive advantage. With a harmed status, it will be hard for her to gain any formal employment. But with a cleared reputation, Ella will become motivated and as well as innovative which will be essential to life as a journalist. Part 1 c) – freedom of information Act Freedom of 1nformation Act or regularly known as (FOIA) is an act that set so as to help people in accessing the information that is kept by the government. The act is significantly importance because people are able to view the information that is held by the government, and they may seek accuracy if the information does not reflect the facts. Referring to the case of Larry and Ella, one can recommend that Ella has a legal right to access information she is demanding concerning Larry. In the law of communication, it is in the act 47F whereby it is stated that the revelation of personal information involves even the unreasonable revelation. Additionally, FOI act is an essential bill because through the act people who have an interest on a given area or interest in particular information will be able to gain the material they want. Moreover, the act allows journalist to collect in-depth and correct information regarding materials they are working on. Importantly, the act has enabled the community to become much open. In this context, journalist can carry out their obligation with the feeling of being confident. This is as a result of journalist being able to access information freely without being hiden. Part 2) Right of privacy and right to freedom of expression Every creature has the right to be respected in the context of private life. 5This subject of the right of privacy is equivalent to the legal restrictions (Beatson, Cripps &Williams, 2007). In other word, a person private can be described as a human right. It is unlawful for any individual to hamper with other person privacy. The law governs and protects individuals’ privacy against any attack. On the other hand, the right to freedom of expression is associated with people’s providing their opinion. Usually, this is mostly applied in the media as different journalists hold different opinions regarding any matter. Conversely, in the situation of the media, both right of privacy and right to freedom of 6expression should be balanced. Referring the case of Larry and Ella, the right of privacy and the right to freedom of the press can be poised together by the government. In this context, the government is supposed to take the mandate of providing a law that considers the genuine protection of an individual’s autonomy and as well as protecting people’s freedom of communication (Commonlawreview.cz, 2015). Importantly, balancing the two rights will serve as a stepping stone to journalists and the media industry as a whole. Lastly, in Australia the setting of common law can be viewed as a sign of the existence of the law of privacy and freedom of the press. The common law was set so as to regulate the issues of privacy and determine accountability for a breach of autonomy rights. Also, the existence of common law in Australia can be seen as an act to reform rights of journalists, in particular, the right to freedom of press (Dashiell, 2013). As a matter of fact, the law should exist because there will be reformation and protection of individuals especially working in the media department. Part 3 Question 5 a The Commonwealth Department of Tourist Attracting. Question 6 a The act was a public act because it was made on an online forum. Question 7 a It is likely that Larry’s health information would have the necessary quality of confidence about it. Question 8 a If a court ordered Ella to disclose her source for Larry’s health information, she would not be compelled to reveal Bettie’s name if it was contrary to her industry code of ethics. Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, communication law is vital to the journalist and as well as all the stakeholders. The application of the law in the communication sector can be seen as a move to enhance a mutual relationship between different parties and the media people. More so, the restrictions will mostly apply in the case of online publishing. 7One of the key challenges with online journalism is defamation. With the law being implemented, the issues of defamation will be eliminated. In addition, as a result of online communication the cases of conflict of interest has increased. In fact, many journalists are now competing to write the most effective articles. Consequentially, the competing factor has led to many people being exposed to an extent of losing their privacy. However, with the implementation of privacy acts, and as well as the common law regulating and governing the work of journalism, the cases of defamation and lose privacy has been minimal. Bibliography Dashiell, E. (2013). Communication law. [Place of publication not identified]: Kendall Hunt. Beatson, J., Cripps, Y. and Williams, D. (2007). Freedom of expression and freedom of information. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (2005). The right to privacy. New York: Knopf. Hocking, W. (2007). Freedom of the press, a framework of principle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. www.onlinejounalismmblog.com, (2015). [online] Available at: http://www.onlinejounalismmblog.com/2012/11/7-laws-journalist-now-need-to-know-from-database-rights-to-hate-speech/ [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Barendt, E. M. Freedom Of The Press. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. Glenn, H. (2010). On common laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Commonlawreview.cz, (2015). Common Law Review. [online] Available at: http://www.commonlawreview.cz/on-selecting-jurisdiction-in-internet-defamation-cases [Accessed 1 Oct. 2015]. Kenyon, A. (2010). What Conversation? Free Speech and Defamation Law. The Modern Law Review, 73(5), pp.697-720. Collins, M. (2009). The law of defamation and the Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More