So, what is defamation?
Defamation is to say something bad about a person that does them harm. Also called slander or libel.
Times they are a changing.
In 2006, uniform defamation law was introduced that made initial changes to the legislation. These changes included:
1. Companies with more than ten employees cannot sue for defamation unless they are a not for profit organisation. They also cannot be related to any other corporation.
2. Representative of the deceased cannot sue for defamation.
This provided more freedom of speech for not only major broadcasting agencies but for community members and groups. Large companies were limited in their right to sue for defamation and more defences such as the 'Truth Defense' were put in play.
Self Defence 101, the ways to beat defamation.
1. Honest Opinion or Fair Comment, which is used as a defence to defamation if it is proved that the defamatory material was honest opinion rather than statement of fact.
2. Justification or the Truth Defense
Justification is a complete defence to defamation if it is proved that the defamation was true.
3. Qualified Privilege
There are three ways qualified privilege can help defend against defamation:
(a) The recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject, and
(b) The matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient information on that subject, and
(c) The conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances.
What is contempt of court?
This refers to an individual showing disrespect during a trial to the court, its process and its invested powers. Contempt of court may result from a failure to obey the law and order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings due to poor behaviour, or publication of material which may be likely to jeopardise a fair trial. Someone found guilty of contempt of court may be fined or jailed.
What is racial vilification?
This is the Australian legislation which refers to public acts which encourage or incite others to hate certain people because of their race, nationality, colour or country of origin. These acts are illegal, according to the Racial Vilification Act 1996.
The good, the bad and the sedition laws.
Sedition laws oppose those who intentionally urge others, through the internet or other ways, to harm other Australians. In particular, sedition laws concern urging:
• Overthrow of the Australian government or state governments by violence
• Violent interference with elections
• Violence against other groups in the community
• Assisting any enemy engaged with the Australian Defence Force.
Sedition laws have been criticised by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance as well as various media proprietors such as News Limited and Fairfax as being detrimental to freedom of speech. Despite putting restrictions on what journalists and the general public can say about our government policies, if given the ability to the instigation of violence could cause more harm than good.
It is true to say that not all opposing views on government policies will cause a violent uproar in society. However, the sedition laws are put in place for a reason, especially in such a multicultural country like Australia. The opposing views of different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds have the ability to cause a stir as seen with such things like the Cronulla Riots. To put this on a larger scale would possibly start a potential coup de taut within Australia.
However, free speech is something that we as Australian’s are entitled too, so we have to ask whether these laws are just in place in the off chance, so that no one can instigate an attack on political policies. Freedom of speech has been an ideal long before sedition laws were in place, but is it safe to have one without the other? Or has it become a tool to keep the public numbed to the fact that they cannot fully express their opinion on the government, despite living in a democratic country.
Leo Schofield and the Lobster.
The Blue Angel defamation case was a famous 1989 Australian court case that saw Sydney food writer Leo Schofield and newspaper Sydney Morning Herald lose $100,000 plus interest for defaming a restaurant.
On May 21, 1984, Schofield and companion, David Spode, ate at the Blue Angel Restaurant in Sydney. They ate lobster, garlic prawns, and lemon sole. Schofield left a tip and his business card as he left. The review appeared in The Herald on 29 May 1984.
The review was highly unfavourable. It began:
I have never really understood about live fish in tanks in restaurants. If they are seen as a way to guarantee freshness, then surely we ought also to have live pigs in pens in the middle of restaurants, ready for slaughter to ensure the freshest possible loin of pork and the odd steer waiting patiently to be zapped by the electric hammer before transformation.
Schofield wrote there was a 45-minute wait for grilled lobster. And referred to it as “an albino walrus.”
The restaurant owner, Marcello Marcobello, sued Schofield and the publisher, John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, for defamation. The case was heard before Justice Enderby and a jury of four in 1989.
Marcobello claimed Schofield imputed he was a cruel and inhumane restaurateur because the restaurant killed live lobsters by boiling them alive and cooked lobsters for 45 minutes, which was contrary to standard cooking; he charged prices that didn’t reflect good value; he served charred lobster and severely overcooked garlic prawns and lemon sole.
Schofield and Fairfax claimed fair comment and truth as their defences. Witnesses claimed to have eaten overcooked meals at the Blue Angel, and Frank Marcobello, said he had reservations about chef Antonnella Cortese. There had also been an error in the review: ‘broiled’ was typeset as ‘boiled’. Marcello Marcobello pointed out that no correction of errors had been printed, his witnesses claimed the food in question was very good and not overcooked and Ms Cortese offered detailed explanations of her cooking methods. He also cast doubt on his father’s testimony, and claimed his ongoing feud with his son was the reason he testified for the defence.
Schofield and Fairfax lost and had to pay $78,000 to Marcobello and $22,000 to the restaurant. More than $50,000 interest was added.
The key reason the defence of fair comment failed was that they did not satisfy some of the basic requirements of the court. Most importantly, they were unable to prove the truth of the truth of the facts on which the opinion had been based. They had eaten the evidence.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Smart-Arse Guide To Journalism. March 10th
What characteristics make a good journalist?
Good question actually....
!. An understanding of news and current affairs, even if it's "What Katie (Holmes) Did", or didn't eat for breakfast.
@. Desire to scoop out a story - like a modern day Sherlock, and letting the story lead you wherever it bloody well wants to - like the back of a girl's bathroom door in Kings Cross for example.
#. A long term interest in journalism, because honestly, if you've only liked it for two weeks, chances are you're going to hate it two weeks later.
$. The ability to withstand a lot of shit. It's not all fun, right? So if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
%. Writing skills. Who wants a 'dumb arse' working for them?
Good question actually....
!. An understanding of news and current affairs, even if it's "What Katie (Holmes) Did", or didn't eat for breakfast.
@. Desire to scoop out a story - like a modern day Sherlock, and letting the story lead you wherever it bloody well wants to - like the back of a girl's bathroom door in Kings Cross for example.
#. A long term interest in journalism, because honestly, if you've only liked it for two weeks, chances are you're going to hate it two weeks later.
$. The ability to withstand a lot of shit. It's not all fun, right? So if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
%. Writing skills. Who wants a 'dumb arse' working for them?
Voices Of Freedom? August 25th
Freedom house has released a statement this week stating that press freedom has declined worldwide over the past year.
Out of 195 countries and territories, only thirty six percent were rated as free, while Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt were placed on a “dishonour roll.”
Press freedom has been declining every year since 2002, but this year was the first time that all regions experience deterioration.
Executive director of Freedom House Jennifer Winsdor claims that pressures are being applied to journalists by governments, putting them up against the ropes to stay alive.
Overall, the biggest drop occurred in Central and Eastern Europe, with journalists being murdered in Bulgaria and Croatia and assaulted in Bosnia.
Out of 195 countries and territories, only thirty six percent were rated as free, while Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt were placed on a “dishonour roll.”
Press freedom has been declining every year since 2002, but this year was the first time that all regions experience deterioration.
Executive director of Freedom House Jennifer Winsdor claims that pressures are being applied to journalists by governments, putting them up against the ropes to stay alive.
Overall, the biggest drop occurred in Central and Eastern Europe, with journalists being murdered in Bulgaria and Croatia and assaulted in Bosnia.
Me And My Sarah- Janye. Feburary 10th
Influenced by a life of deep thought, emotion and passion, 15yr old Sarah (NOT Sarah Jayne) from Dapto high decrees that a person without passion is no person at all.
Her opinions on all aspects of life are strong, arguing to the point of being obnoxious (self- admittedly of course) and she has a not so inner feminist streak. "I'm not feminist... I'm just a bitch" she proclaims. Although she admits arguing a point until blue in the face, all she asks is that you listen and respect her opinion and she will offer the same courtesy towards you.
She carries a love of photography that stems from her deepness of emotion and the power to feel, even after a situation has subsided. Although she has difficulty making things permanent in her life and takes each day as it comes, she still aspires to greater things in her future, like a career writing for Rolling Stone magazine and living in the beautiful city of Rome.
As any teenager, she has her heroes, with hers being one of the more unlikely candidates, Kurt Cobain. She claims that the conspiracies of murder instead of suicide are all true.
The trivial facts of birthdays and activities don't matter. Sarah wants to know people for who they are and what they believe, which she does by posting herself out honestly and 100%.
Her opinions on all aspects of life are strong, arguing to the point of being obnoxious (self- admittedly of course) and she has a not so inner feminist streak. "I'm not feminist... I'm just a bitch" she proclaims. Although she admits arguing a point until blue in the face, all she asks is that you listen and respect her opinion and she will offer the same courtesy towards you.
She carries a love of photography that stems from her deepness of emotion and the power to feel, even after a situation has subsided. Although she has difficulty making things permanent in her life and takes each day as it comes, she still aspires to greater things in her future, like a career writing for Rolling Stone magazine and living in the beautiful city of Rome.
As any teenager, she has her heroes, with hers being one of the more unlikely candidates, Kurt Cobain. She claims that the conspiracies of murder instead of suicide are all true.
The trivial facts of birthdays and activities don't matter. Sarah wants to know people for who they are and what they believe, which she does by posting herself out honestly and 100%.
Why? March 12th
Why do I want to be a journalist?
I guess you could say it's been a childhood ambition, ever since I saw a lady journalist in Batman in the early '90s. Seeing her getting swept off her feet by my then hero, made me want to do exactly what she did.
As I got older, I began to appreciate the value of words more, and discovered a love for writing. I wrote a short story when I was six about two kids that couldn't go outside and play because it was raining. I even interviewed Barbie dolls and told my Aunty all the gossip I had found out about Barbie and Ken's relationship.
This love for writing continued on into primary and highschool, where I gave myself the task of interviewing other students for whatever reason it may be. I found joy in scoping out stories and re-telling them to my peers, and have recently done promo work for various activities for my school and a review of the latest school play.
Journalism has always just seemed like this unshakeable urge or passion, I've known for most of my life that this is what I want to do, and there has never been any argument against it.
I guess you could say it's been a childhood ambition, ever since I saw a lady journalist in Batman in the early '90s. Seeing her getting swept off her feet by my then hero, made me want to do exactly what she did.
As I got older, I began to appreciate the value of words more, and discovered a love for writing. I wrote a short story when I was six about two kids that couldn't go outside and play because it was raining. I even interviewed Barbie dolls and told my Aunty all the gossip I had found out about Barbie and Ken's relationship.
This love for writing continued on into primary and highschool, where I gave myself the task of interviewing other students for whatever reason it may be. I found joy in scoping out stories and re-telling them to my peers, and have recently done promo work for various activities for my school and a review of the latest school play.
Journalism has always just seemed like this unshakeable urge or passion, I've known for most of my life that this is what I want to do, and there has never been any argument against it.
We Are In Danger Of Being Swamped By... Pauline? March 17th
The humble fish and chip shop lady turned politician turned inmate turned dancer, has made the headline yet again for something as equally outrageous as her racial point of view.
This time, our little lady has exposed all (in a literal sense).
Recently a series of photos of a 19yr old Hanson in (politically) compromising positions has surfaced in various media outlets nationwide. According to the woman in question the photos are not of her. The Sunday Telegraph however has stuck to its story, alledgelly putting them through serious photo shop testing to prove authenticity.
This event has sparked some controversy within several Queensland political parties. It would seem that the photos are being used against Hanson in a childish bid to make her political run a big joke among the general public. On the other side, there have been rumours that back Hanson claiming a huge conspiricy against her to decrease her popularity.
Despite the average citizens urge to make fun of Pauline at any given moment, any reasonable person should be able to see that these photos not only went too far in regards to journalistic ethics, but also in basic human morals.
It's true that these photos would get popular attention (as they have) and pull in large numbers for papers and TV shows, but can a person really be judged on something they did in a drunken moment in their youth? And should we be sitting there ready to pass judgement on her (even though we may dislike her) when if we were in her shoes, we too would feel completely betrayed and embarrassed?
I didn't think so.
This time, our little lady has exposed all (in a literal sense).
Recently a series of photos of a 19yr old Hanson in (politically) compromising positions has surfaced in various media outlets nationwide. According to the woman in question the photos are not of her. The Sunday Telegraph however has stuck to its story, alledgelly putting them through serious photo shop testing to prove authenticity.
This event has sparked some controversy within several Queensland political parties. It would seem that the photos are being used against Hanson in a childish bid to make her political run a big joke among the general public. On the other side, there have been rumours that back Hanson claiming a huge conspiricy against her to decrease her popularity.
Despite the average citizens urge to make fun of Pauline at any given moment, any reasonable person should be able to see that these photos not only went too far in regards to journalistic ethics, but also in basic human morals.
It's true that these photos would get popular attention (as they have) and pull in large numbers for papers and TV shows, but can a person really be judged on something they did in a drunken moment in their youth? And should we be sitting there ready to pass judgement on her (even though we may dislike her) when if we were in her shoes, we too would feel completely betrayed and embarrassed?
I didn't think so.
One For The Money. May 12th
Wollongong TAFE campus has recently been given the oppertunity to spend $8.5 million on up-grading and restoring their infrastructure. We visitied the campus last Tuesday afternoon to get some opinions as to what the money should be spent on. The answers we recieved were suprising, as many people didn't have an answer for us.
"I don't know, I don't really pay much attention..." says Wendy, a full time librarian who has worked at the TAFE for several years. Dean and Craig, both third year metal shop students, seemed to have no opinion either, joking around outside the cafeteria with cigarettes "The only thing I'd do is get rid of the no smoking signs."
Further investigation of the grounds led us to Alice, a second year apprentice chef. "I'd like the money to be spent on upgrading the kitchen equipment" she says. "Some of the ovens are a bit worse for wear." Damien, also studying commercial cookery, would like to see some of the seating areas done up. "The gazebos are starting to get a bit rotted, it'd be nice to find a seat that wasn't dirty and graffitied."
So it seems that the money is a good opportunity for the Wollongong campus. However, it may take a while for the decision to be made on what exactly it is to be used for.
"I don't know, I don't really pay much attention..." says Wendy, a full time librarian who has worked at the TAFE for several years. Dean and Craig, both third year metal shop students, seemed to have no opinion either, joking around outside the cafeteria with cigarettes "The only thing I'd do is get rid of the no smoking signs."
Further investigation of the grounds led us to Alice, a second year apprentice chef. "I'd like the money to be spent on upgrading the kitchen equipment" she says. "Some of the ovens are a bit worse for wear." Damien, also studying commercial cookery, would like to see some of the seating areas done up. "The gazebos are starting to get a bit rotted, it'd be nice to find a seat that wasn't dirty and graffitied."
So it seems that the money is a good opportunity for the Wollongong campus. However, it may take a while for the decision to be made on what exactly it is to be used for.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
