Class Notes (837,998)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)
Lecture

11.2 Freedom of Political Communication.doc

2 Pages
58 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
JSB171
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Spring

Description
Implied Freedom of Political Communication Basis • Freedom of communication on government and political matters: Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Cth (ban on political advertising during election periods—Australian broadcasting Tribunal to allocate set time for political advertising between parties  invalid (4:3) (McHugh —only valid to territories | Brennan—only valid to States) | Dawson J rejected guarantee ← attempt to introduce a bill of rights)) o in relation to all levels of government protected (State & Cth) • Implication derived from text & structure of Constitution o ← Implied from representative and responsible government o ← ss 7 & 24 (senate & house of representatives)—allows free & informed choice as electors: Lange  But not confined to election period • The freedom is not absolute o Some legitimate interests that allow freedom to be curtailed o Criticism—many democracies do have laws like this o Eg—Cth may pass law protecting IR body from unwarranted & illegitimate attack, but not from all criticism: Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (ban on using any words in print or speech bringing Industrial Relations Commission or members into disrepute  not in (xxxv) IR power or even incidental | Defamation • Resistance to sweeping immunity: Stephens v West Australian Newspapers per Mason CJ, Toohey & Gaudron JJ cf. Deane J • Not confined to election period: Lange (former PM of NZ bringing defamation against ABC  not liable since defamation burdened freedom || qualified privilege: joint judgment)  law of qualified privilege insufficient • Test: Lange o 1 Limb: Does the law effectively burden freedom of communication about government ondpolitical matters in its terms, operation or effect o 2 Limb: If so, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner (the fulfilment of) which is compatible with the maintenance of the system of government prescribed by the Constitution:  As slightly modified in Coleman v Power o s • Does not confer personal rights on individuals—restricts legislative & executive powers— sword not a shield: Lange o ← does not apply as defence to defamation of itself  Cf. Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times (defence for defamation relating to political matters—wide view of political discussion); affirmed in Stephens • Defamation law must conform to guarantee—whether in common law or statute • Wide view of political manner • Also on State matters: Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Andrew Trotter LWB242
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit