| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation  Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/12search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
vicsig
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 11, 2003 Last Visited: Sep 15, 2004 Location: www.vicsig.net
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:46 pm
|
A lesson for many Railpage Australia™ Forums users (inc me)
What is defamation?
Last edited by vicsig on Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
 |
350M-1196T-691M
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 14, 2003 Last Visited: Oct 14, 2004 Location: Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:56 pm
|
What it is
The basic idea of defamation law is simple. It is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.
There are two types of defamation.
* Oral defamation -- called slander -- for example comments or stories told at a meeting or party.
* Published defamation -- called libel -- for example a newspaper article or television broadcast. Pictures as well as words can be libellous.
Anything that injures a person's reputation can be defamatory. If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory.
* You tell your friends that the boss is unfair. That's slander of the boss.
* You write a letter to the newspaper saying a politician is corrupt. That's libel of the politician, even if it's not published.
* You say on television that a building was badly designed. That's libel due to the imputation that the architect is professionally incompetent, even if you didn't mention any names.
* You sell a book that contains defamatory material. That's spreading of a defamation.
The fact is, nearly everyone makes defamatory statements almost every day. Only very rarely does someone use the law of defamation against such statements.
Defences
When threatened with a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. But there is another, more useful way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.
If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:
* what you said was true;
* you had a duty to provide information;
* you were expressing an opinion.
For example:
* You can defend yourself on the grounds that what you said is true.
* If you have a duty to make a statement, you may be protected under the defence of "qualified privilege." For example, if you are a teacher and make a comment about a student to the student's parents -- for example, that the student has been naughty -- a defamation action can only succeed if they can prove you were malicious. You are not protected if you comment about the student in the media.
* If you are expressing an opinion, for example on a film or restaurant, then you may be protected by the defence of "comment" or "fair comment," if the facts in your statement were reasonably accurate.
* There is an extra defence if you are a parliamentarian and speak under parliamentary privilege, in which case your speech is protected by "absolute privilege," which is a complete defence in law. The same defence applies to anything you say in court.
The same basic defences apply throughout Australia, although the things you have to prove to apply them may differ. For example, in some Australian states, truth alone is an adequate defence. In other states, a statement has to be true and in the public interest -- if what you said was true but not considered by the court to be in the public interest, you can be successfully sued for defamation.
What can happen
* You can be threatened with a defamation suit. You might receive a letter saying that unless you retract a statement, you will be sued. There are numerous threats of defamation. Most of them are just bluffs; nothing happens. Even so, often a threat is enough to deter someone from speaking out, or enough to make them publish a retraction.
* Proceedings for defamation may be commenced against you. This is the first step in beginning a defamation action. Statements of claim, writs or summons shouldn't be ignored. If you receive one, you should seek legal advice.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court
|
|
 |
350M-1196T-691M
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 14, 2003 Last Visited: Oct 14, 2004 Location: Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
 |
freightgate
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2003 Last Visited: Nov 12, 2008 Location: Albury, New South Wales
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:14 am
|
|
I believe you also need to "prove" you have suffered a loss financial or otherwise.
CNNNN - "Mr. Howard, what do you think of our new ethanol flavoured lollypops?" Umm Mr. Howard? ..... Mr. Howard??????? ..........
|
|
 |
Riccardo
Minister for Railways
Joined: Aug 20, 2003 Last Visited: Nov 28, 2008 Location: Elsewhere
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:54 am
|
| 350M-1196T-691M wrote: |
* There is an extra defence if you are a parliamentarian and speak under parliamentary privilege, in which case your speech is protected by "absolute privilege," which is a complete defence in law. The same defence applies to anything you say in court.
|
Correct, but incorrect emphasis.
There is no 'privilege' attached to speaking parliament, rather, the separation of powers prevents a court from making any comment on the behaviour of parliamentarians on the floor of parliament.
Read Mees vs Batchelor et al (a thread in this forum refers to this extensively) where the court found that it could make no finding as to whether Batchelor lied to the Federal Environment Minister, as that would conflict with a statement Batchelor made to Parliament, which the court is unable to adjudicate on. That was why the case was thrown out.
Parliament is literally a law unto itself. It is self governing and self administering, and self disciplining. Through the standing orders and resolutions, the presiding officers and/or the body of parliament can rule on the conduct of a member. Defamatory statements, as such, can be ruled out of order by the presiding officers, apologies ordered, members censured and ultimately suspended or worse. Parliament also has the direct power to jail people, of course practically never used.
A member of Parliament cannot be arrested on their way to a sitting, nor can police enter the building except with the approval of the presiding officers. Carmen Lawrence could avoid extradition to Perth during the Marks royal commission by remaining within the chamber; it would be impossible for a process server or a policeman/woman to collect her.
So I contest the word 'privilege' it is not a privilege that is the court's to give, rather a privilege of a court to be permitted by Parliament to hear a matter relating to a member of Parliament.
You might say "What a bunch of political w______kers, making the laws for themselves" but it stops the problem in less mature systems, of someone going to court to stop Parliament enacting something, for example, obtaining a court order to prevent parliament passing a law, by claiming parliamentary debate to be defamatory.
If you need to get in touch, drop a comment at the Transport Textbook or on my blog.
|
|
 |
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum You cannot reply to threads in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|