The
\ncurrent defamation laws in Australia aims to protect and balance reputation and
\nfreedom of speech of individuals in the society. These current laws have been
\nthoroughly investigated on how fair the outcomes they provide are to the key
\nstake holders; the law, plaintiff and defendant. The impacts found were
\npositive and a well justified decision has been made on the main issue as to
\nwhether these laws should be reformed or not.<\/p>\n
On According Defamation laws have both positive and Furthermore, in the case Hockey v In both the above cases, the The tort of Defamation aims to Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n The current defamation laws in Australia aims to protect and balance reputation and freedom of speech of individuals in the society. These current laws have been thoroughly investigated on how fair the outcomes they provide are to the key stake holders; the law, plaintiff and defendant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[90],"class_list":["post-348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaystort-law","tag-au-law"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n1 January 2006, uniform defamation legislation was passed in all Australian
\nStates, based upon model provisions agreed to by the Standing Committee of
\nAttorneys-General (Legalpedia, 2017). In Queensland, the Defamation
\nAct 2005 (Queensland Consolidated Acts, 2016)<\/em> annulled the Defamation
\nAct 1899<\/em> (Qld) (1899 Act<\/strong>) (Legalpedia, 2017). The 2005 Act now governs the law of
\ndefamation in Queensland (Legalpedia, 2017). The 2005 Act will
\napply to defamatory matter published after 1 January 2006. If the defamation
\noccurred previous to 1 January 2006, the 1889 Act will apply (Defamation
\n factsheet, 2017).
\nThe 2005 Act does not define the meaning of the elements of a defamation action (Defamation
\n factsheet, 2017).
\nInstead, they are defined by the common law, or the body of \u201cjudge-made\u201d law
\nthat has been established through cases decided by the courts (Defamation
\n factsheet, 2017).
\nThe plaintiff must prove the following in order to sue for defamation.
\nPublication, this means that the material is made known to a third person other
\nthan the person being defamed. Publication can be oral, in writing or in
\npictures (Legalpedia, 2017). The plaintiff must also
\nbe able to show that the defamatory matter could reasonably be taken to be
\nabout him or her (Legalpedia, 2017). Lastly, the
\nplaintiff must show that there was Defamatory matter. This will be determined
\non whether the material was capable of conveying the defamatory meaning alleged
\nby the plaintiff to an ordinary person (Legalpedia, 2017). If this is answered
\npositively, the next question for determination is: whether, in fact, an
\nordinary person would have taken the publication as conveying the meaning
\nalleged (Legalpedia, 2017).<\/p>\n
\nto the defamation laws, for a defendant to be successful, either of the
\nfollowing have to be present. The first defence is truth. Under
\nthe uniform defamation laws, truth alone is a complete defence (Law hand book, 2017). Therefore, it is
\nnot essential for a defendant to prove that the publication related to a matter
\nof public interest or public benefit (Law hand book, 2017). Another defence is Absolute
\nprivilege. In some circumstances, freedom of communication is considered to be
\nso important that the participants are completely protected from being legally
\nresponsible for defamation (Law hand book, 2017). Absolute privilege is recognised by the common law
\nand by section 27 of the Defamation Act (Queensland Consolidated Acts,
\n 2016).
\nThis applies to members of parliament in the course of parliamentary
\nproceedings. This means that the person who makes the defamatory statement cannot
\nbe charged with defamation even if he\/she knew the statement was false and
\nintentionally made the statement in order to damage the affected person\u2019s
\nreputation (Law hand book, 2017). The Protected Disclosure Act 2012 (Parliament of Victoria, 2017)<\/em> confers absolute
\nprivilege on disclosures, made on reasonable
\ngrounds, that a public body or public officer has
\nbeen involved in, or proposes to engage in, improper conduct. The disclosure
\nmust be made to the suitable person, as set out in section 6 of that Act. Another
\ndefence is Qualified privilege. The defence of \u201cqualified
\nprivilege\u201d protects honest statement in such situations (Law hand
\n book, 2017).
\nQualified privilege is recognised by the common law and by the Defamation Act.
\nThe Defamation Act does not affect the common law defence of qualified
\nprivilege. In circumstances protected by qualified privilege, a plaintiff can
\nonly successfully sue for defamation by proving that the defendant was motivated
\nby malice when making the defamatory statement (Law hand
\n book, 2017).
\nThe last defence is Fair comment. The common law defence of fair comment
\napplies to comments\/opinions conveyed about matters of public interest (Law hand
\n book, 2017).
\nThe Defamation Act (s 31) provides a defence of honest opinion that is
\nsimilar to the common law fair comment defence (Law hand
\n book, 2017).<\/p>\n
\nnegative impacts on citizens in the society. The laws helps to protect the
\nreputation of individuals. This can be seen in the case Mikie v Farley (Whitburn,
\n 2014).
\nMr Farley, who was 20 at the time of the judgment, is the son of the school’s
\nformer head of music and arts, who was described as a “gentle man who
\nhad a number of health issues” (Whitburn, 2014). Young Mr Farley
\ngraduated from high school in 2011 and had never been taught by Ms Mickle. In
\nNovember 2012, he posted a series of defamatory comments on Twitter and
\nFacebook about Ms Mickle. This affected Ms Mickle causing her to leave work.
\nThere was evidence that, in the absence of the comments, the senior teacher
\nwould have continued teaching as she had before “until she reached the age
\nof 65 which is in about seven years’ time” (Whitburn,
\n 2014),
\nwhich is a clear indication that her reputation was damaged. The defendant did apologise
\nbut later claimed \u2018truth\u2019 as a defence. The judge ruled that since the
\ndefendants claim of truth contradicted the apology, it was invalid. Judge
\nElkaim ordered Mr Farley to pay $85,000 in compensatory damages (Whitburn,
\n 2014).
\nHe also ruled that the young man’s conduct in response to the case warranted an
\nadditional $20,000 in aggravated damages (Whitburn, 2014). This shows that
\ndefamation laws impact society positively; as justice was served for Ms Mickle.
\nThis is despite the fact that the defamation act does not include online
\ndefamation.<\/p>\n
\nFairfax media (Whitbourn, 2015), politician Joe
\nhockey sued Fairfax media on the account of defamation for tweeting the words
\n\u2018Treasurer for sale\u2019. The defence claimed qualified privilege relating to
\nreasonableness and public interest as defence. Federal Court Judge, Richard
\nWhite however rejected the defence as he found it unreasonable for Fairfax
\nmedia to publish material with a defamatory meaning to promote interest in its
\nstories. Judge white upheld the plaintiffs claim that the words conveyed that
\nhe was engaged in corrupt conduct and awarded him a total $200000 in damages (Whitbourn,
\n 2015).
\nDefamation laws provided justice for the plaintiff who was a politician unlike
\nPoliticians in the US face an uphill battle bringing defamation
\nactions, due to the public figure doctrine which subjects defamation law
\nto freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment (Whitbourn,
\n 2015).
\nThere is however, a dark side to this case under defamation. Judge White
\ndismissed Mr Hockey\u2019s case over the substantive articles promoted by the
\ntweets and poster. He found that the articles in the Herald and the age were of
\n\u2018considerable public interest\u2019 and did not defame the plaintiff by suggesting
\nhe was corrupt or took bribes. This was so even though the herald and the age
\nused the same headline \u2018Treasurer for sale\u2019 which was found defamatory on the
\ntweets and posters of Fairfax Media.<\/p>\n
\ncurrent defamation laws served proper justice. A woman whose reputation as a
\nteacher was damaged received proper compensation. A politician who was defamed
\nand falsely been accused being corrupt was able to clear his name, save his
\nreputation and also claim damages due to the current defamation laws. Recent
\narguments have said that the current defamation would need to be reformed as
\nthey pose a risk to free speech (Rolph, 2016). This could not be
\nfurther from the truth. Defamation law seeks to strike a balance between the
\nprotection of reputation and freedom of speech (Arts Law Centre of Australia, 2015). Unlike laws in
\ncountries like the USA, where the media and people are allowed to say whatever
\nthey want about the politicians and damage their reputations due to the public
\nfigure doctrine which subjects defamation law to freedom of speech protections
\nunder the First Amendment (Whitbourn, 2015), Australian
\ndefamation laws actual try to serve their true purpose which is to protect
\nreputations of individuals and at same time keep freedom of speech. Freedom of
\nspeech is not suppressed under the Defamation<\/em> Act 2005<\/em>
\n(Queensland Government, 2016), in fact it is only
\ndefamation if it is false. The reason the media is focused on reforming
\ndefamation, is because they want to get away with saying whatever they want.
\nSimilar to the case Hockey v Fairfax media, the media put false statements in order to
\nmake it interesting. This does not seem to be fair to society. Overall the
\ncurrent defamation laws are perfect the way they are and are even performing
\nbetter than other countries like the USA.<\/p>\n
\nprotect and balance reputation and freedom of speech. The current defamation
\nlegislation the
\nDefamation Act 2005<\/em> repealed the Defamation Act 1899<\/em> (Qld) have up until today been able to keep
\nthis aim. In both the cases, the laws were able to provide justice for the
\nsociety. They have served the society positively and do not require any
\nreforms.<\/p>\n\n