Media Law Scenarios

This assignment analyzes three media law scenarios involving defamation, sub judice, and online reviews. It examines relevant Australian laws, case law, and legal principles to provide solutions and recommendations for journalists and media organizations.

Media law Scenario
and Responses

Table of Contents
SCENARIO 1...................................................................................................................................3
SCENARIO 2...................................................................................................................................5
SCENARIO 3...................................................................................................................................6

SCENARIO 1
Issue:
Is publication of anti government criticism and comments are liable to get be punished under the
media law?
What is defence available to the defendant against such allegation.
Rule:
Defamation Act, 2005
Section 9: Sharing critical opinions on social media regarding government policies,
includes constitutional freedom of political discussion where a public authority is not entitled to
a cause of deformation.
Case law:
Lange v ABC:
Extension of common law:
The duty is the correlative of the interest each Australian has an interest in receiving
government and political info, thus publication must concern a political and public matter. The
court gave implied freedom of political communication (Fernandez, 2013). This is a continuous
freedom and do not restrict to the time of election. The freedom's purpose is grounded on the
functioning of democratic and responsible government, requiring freedom of communication
between the voters and their representatives.
Stephens v West Australia
In this case the court modified the requisition of the common law defence over the
qualified privilege due to the reason that the current defences did not adequately suit the
requirement of implied freedom of political communication (Packard, 2012). It was held by the
court that the matters was not related with the political rather defamation of the political or
government parties. Thus, the defence must reside against defamation.
DEFENCES
Section 31: Honest opinion:
It is a defence where the defences is required to prove that the opinion was a mere
expression of opinion rather a statement of the fact by the employee of the defendant [s31(1)(a)].
The opinion must be an understood as a statement and applicability of relevance test is required
to define the intention of the defendant as it to be ordinary reasonable.

Application and conclusion
The opinion tweets against the government policies can be presented as defamation case
and breaching the privacy and confidential policies in the government. As it was stated in case of
Clarke v Norton, the opinion in this case is also a statement as it was made on the government
polices which is a subject matter of public interest.
An argument of the freedom of expression in Australia can be considered in this case.
This argument is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where any Australian
can possess the right to self-expression regardless of the situation. This can be linked to the
ruling of the case of Stephens v West Australia where it was held that freedom of communication
to a political matter afford a defence under this category. Moreover, the in the case of Sutherland
v stops it is required to show that the facts warrant the imputation in the sense of being a
conclusion which any reasonable person would draw from those facts
As a journalist she must take consideration of mindful practice is critical and should be
considered in all dimensions. A reflective practice is critical and should be considered in all
aspects of reporting. This includes mindful discussion in the social media and other platforms
available as stated in the case of Lyon v Daily Telegraph. Every journalist is entitled to avoid
emotional and non-considerate utterances. The statutory defence is not defeated by malice, must
only be based on “proper material” and be honest. So here is defence can not work as freedom of
expression and the journalist must be held liable for her act she has responsivity under her
profession as per the case decision of Slim v Daily Telegraph.
SCENARIO 2
Issue: what content of the new coverage must be printed which falls under the ambit of legal
permission to do not?
Rule:
According to the Australian Media law reforms, defamation is one of the crimes related
to media reporting of most of the cases. Australian law defines defamation as an offense of
injuring the reputation of another individual without significant justification or reason. Media
when publishes such materials, it becomes imputation and is answerable in the court of law. The
false or malicious statement can expose the victim to dangers specifically to the public thus
affecting his or her economically and socially. This has been implicated in the Australian

Defamatory Act 2005. Similarly, the contempt in using materials from other stories can also have
significant effects on the suspect unless proven guilty.
Case law:
Heroin Syndicate case
An example for this case is the Heroin Syndicate case which is a good example of sub
judice in as reporting is done when the trial is pending (Fernandez, 2013).
Application:
First, the lack of witness to what happened between Edith and Smith, and referring to
mere speculation before sufficient evidence contempt and sub judice that could land a journalist
to jail (Packard, 2012). Similarly, the narration seems to base its information on older stories
through which the suspect was found guilty of women molestation and drug-related cases. In the
context of crime and justice, relying on materials from other outlets and earlier stories provide
the information with a risk of repetition of earlier mistakes and supporting contempt. This
information cannot be relied for current case. However, they can be considered by the court as
supporting evidence but not in media publication. The authenticity of the report cannot be
established until the court of law. To exposing the suspects to the public as criminals before they
are proven guilty is prohibited act under the law(Fernandez, 2013). Another significant issue
identified in the case sub judice shown through the tweets. Such an emotional response to the
murder should not be published. The editing of the article must eliminate of the defamatory and
sub judice issues identified. The reporting should be sensitive to the crime time zones which
includes the period between the legal arrest and after the verdict.
Recommendations
Finally, media reporting of criminal justice could play a major role in ensuring that
justice is done, the right information is communicated, as well as punished. On the other hand,
reporting can expose some levels of unfairness within the system from either the defendant or the
victims. It could also deter justice through the actions of the justice system. It is suggested that
following the legal philosophies of law. Considering the issues in criminal justice, laws
governing the publicity, and social media, information needs to be processed its publicized. This
regards authentic editing, monitoring, and evaluation before it is published. Writing should be
accurate, fair, as well as without sensationalism. The journalists should take time to develop and

look at context reporting more accurately considering the National laws in conveying authentic
information to the viewers and readers.
SCENARIO 3
Issue:
According to my opinion of the two reviews submitted to the “True Blue Reviews,”
several media issues can be detected from the cases. First, there is a case of defamation which in
this case is focused towards causing harm to the “Fisherman’s lodge. At the same time, the same
reviewer had positive remarks on Sheer hotel. The malicious statements are focused on changing
the decisions of the tourists by depicting the poor situation in the one camp to the other.
However, I could notice the two responses were from the same IP address meaning it was a
malicious statement from one person with the intention of tarnishing the reputations and
affecting the business of the two businesses. Therefore, the reviewer should be arrested and
charged with defamatory and also offering prospective damages to the business operation in the
negatively reviewed hotel.
Laws
Defamation Act 2005 One of the main examples of the defamatory case was the Mickey
vs. Farley case in 2013 which was regarded as Australia’s first defamation case made on Twitter.
According to the case, Andrew Farley was ordered by District Court Judge Elkaim to pay
$105,000 to his former school teacher Christine Mickey for false allegation on Twitter. The
former student believed that Mickey was responsible for displacing his father in the position of a
music teacher. In response, Farley took to the social media to hold derogatory comments on both
Twitter and Facebook. On another case, Hockey vs. Fairfax publications became another case in
court over derogatory utterances on social media. The mistakes in reporting which read
“Treasures for Sale” on Canberra Times and other Twitter cost the company $120,000. These are
some of the many defamation cases reported in the Australian media over the past few years. The
issues of defamation have increased, prompting the government to reform the laws supporting
the offense making more way for punishment for the offenders (Packard, 2012).
Application
According to the Defamation Act 2005, defamation regards exposing another person to
contempt, hatred, or to possible ridicule, which in legal terms can lead to avoidance. In the legal
framework, the act lowers the right thinking of the perception of the person to the public as

explained by the Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd’s High Court (Butler & Rodrick, 2011). The
application of this law would be supported by evidence of the abusive act identifying the malice
and intentions in committing the act. For instance, in the case presented the evidence can be
relied on based on the IP address of the respondent; thus this can be used in the court of law as
sufficient evidence. The false innuendo can “go viral” thus affecting the business operations of
the hotel while causing other negative effects such as bad perception.
Conclusion
Through such examples, I would recommend significant changes in the way people
undertake issues to social media. Although the Australian government provides immunity for
prosecuting organizations with more than ten employees, this does not make defamatory legal for
such companies in damaging business for the competitors. I would recommend the inclusion of
such people in the media law framework. For the individuals, I would recommend systematic
analysis of the factors in dealing with other people especially their opponents. There are many
other factors that can be considered in dealing with people rather than defamation. This includes
having a constructive dialogue and seeking assistance from experts such as lawyers and
counselors.

REFERENCES
Butler, D. A., & Rodrick, S. (2011). Australian Media Law. Melbourne: Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Australia Limited.
Fernandez, J. M. (2013). Media Law in Australia: Principles, Pitfalls and Potentials. Ealing:
Black Swan Press.
Packard, A. (2012). Digital Media Law. Boston: John Wiley & Sons.
Stewart, D. (2017). Social Media and the Law: A Guidebook for Communication Students and
Professionals. Taylor and Francis: Oxfordshire.