Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of Tasmania

7 Pages1680 Words151 Views
   

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

   

Constitutional Law (LLB203)

   

Added on  2020-03-07

About This Document

In this document, we will discuss the constitutional significance of a case by the name of Brown & Anor v The State of Tasmania. This is a case that sought to argue that the protection from Protests Act was unconstitutional and violated the implied right to freedom of political speech and expression. Also, we cover how the Protection from Protests Act could be used to determine the 1983 case of the Commonwealth of Australia v The State of Tasmania.

Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of Tasmania

   

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

   

Constitutional Law (LLB203)

   Added on 2020-03-07

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of TasmaniaName of Student
Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of Tasmania_1
This paper seeks to examine the constitutional significance of a case by the name of Brown & Anor v The State of Tasmania. This is a case that sought to argue that the Protection from Protesters Act was unconstitutional, and it violated the implied right to freedom of political speech and expression. Moreover, this paper examines the manner in which the Protection from Protesters Act could be used to determine the 1983 case of the Commonwealth of Australia v The State of Tasmania. This was a case that raised a number of constitutional issues, including the validity of the World Heritage Conservation Act1. Brown & Anor v The State of Tasmania (2017) is an important case that raises weight constitutional issues touching on the freedom of speech on political matters and issues of government. Note that, any democracy in the world; value this element of freedom of speech andassociation. This is an important element that characterizes a democratic government. Australia is one of the major democracies. However, the Australian constitution does not expressly providefor the freedom of speech on political issues and matters of government. It is based on this fact that the Australian High Court, under the 1992 case of Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, came up with a decision that freedom of speech on matters of politics and government is implied in the Australian constitution2. In this leading case, the challenge was on the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act of Political Broadcasts and Disclosures, and whether this law violated the provisions of the Australian constitution. This law was enacted to regulate the process of advertising during the elections time, and it made it mandatory for media organizations to provide a free broadcast of political activities at designated times. Based on these provisions, the Australian Capital 1Commonwealth of Australia v The State of Tasmania (1983). 2Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) HCA
Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of Tasmania_2
Television was challenging the provisions of this law, and it wanted them to be declared invalid. Upon close examination of this act of parliament, the Australian High court declared it to be invalid. This is because the acted violated the implied right to the freedom of speech that is guaranteed by the constitution. While making this act of parliament to be invalid, the High Court was of the opinion that people have a right to express themselves, if it involves issues touching ion governance, political matters and public issues. These rights are implied by the Australian constitution. In the view of the High Court, freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental requirement of a democratic society, without which, the principles of democracy cannot hold. The Australian constitution promotes the principles of democratic governance, thus, it can be implied that the freedom of speech and expression are part and parcel of the constitution. There have also been a number of subsequent cases that are talking about the constitutionality of the freedom of speech and expression on matters relating to governance and political affairs. These rulings have been used for purposes of determining the scope of implied freedom of speech and expression. On this note, the scope normally extends to:Discussion of political issues and government affairs.Performance of government officials and members of parliament.Discussion of the performance of government officials, their conduct and whether they are fit for service. The constitutionality of the various acts of parliament. On this note, the freedom of speech on political matters and affairs of government only extends to areas where political issues are involved.
Constitutional Significance of Brown & Anor v State of Tasmania_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
The implied freedom of political communication
|12
|3184
|28

Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328: A special case on the laws of the Tasmanian forestry protests and the implied freedom of communication
|9
|2303
|233

Monis v The Queen Case: High Court of Australia
|6
|1785
|419

The Impact Freedom of Political Case Study 2022
|7
|2212
|15

Implied Freedom Of Political Communication
|9
|2796
|175

Media Law Assignment (Solved)
|8
|1963
|226