A Struggle against Oppression, the Freedom of Expressive Opinion.

There is a struggle of power. Society has become marginalised, oppressed and limited to an inescapable realm of misery, impairment and self-humiliation. The proletariat suffers upon the advertent control of the boujoise, and although the proletariat struggles to defame the corruption of the all-powerful regulator, it is a vain attempt. Outside a war rages. The struggle against oppression and the right to express concern is diminishing. Defamation, vilification, shame and slanderous accusation stands at the forefront of modern freedoms and liberty itself. The modern state is now controlled by defamation laws, which although protects individuals with funds to defend supposed false accusation, it has silenced the truth and subverted justice to only those who can pay for its luxury.

With the overwhelming convergence of new media technologies upon society, representing unparallel difficulty suppressing defamation, the task to monitor vilifying and slanderous acquisitions seems futile if not derisory. The implications to control and eliminate such defamatory publishing is unable to be refuted, but in an age where nearly everyone has the capability to employ defamatory articles, the ability to regulate a nation seems impracticable. As seen in the high court case of Dow Jones v Gutnick, free-speech advocates, and those who publish via the internet, need to be aware that although an article may be published overseas, a person defamed can still bring action in their own Australian state. Similarly asserted by Justice Hedican in Victoria, internet publishing should be equal to other forms of media publication. Thousands of people within a particular discipline or with a formal interest, for example, may read a blog published in America about philosophy. In the blog, an article relating to a recent concept could be described as fallacious, absurd or could be ridiculed. Due to the audience being likeminded, it could cause defamation on a far greater scale compared to a newspaper targeting a more diverse audience. Which, although it is fine if an individual has the resources to dispute allegations, for those without copious amounts of money at hand, and the inability to find the individual who has defamed them, it is a growing concern for whistle blowers and those who wish to uphold freedom of information and expression to have a voice which won’t be silenced.

In yesteryears, when a publication was incapable of spreading widely across states, provinces and countries, the overwhelming issue was not as complicated, it was whether a media outlet had defamed an individual and whether they were illegible to contend the claims. An article, for instance published in New York America twenty years ago, would not be likely to reach readers in Sydney Australia, and therefore, would not be able to cause defamation if the intended party never had comprehension of its existence. Today, if information was uploaded to a server on the other side of the world, it could be downloaded anywhere, and therefore cause defamation nearly instantly to any part of the globe. Although mediums such as the internet pose great concerns in relation to defamation, other convergence of media technologies, such as radio, podcasts, SMS, fax and email communication, all similarly have the intentions of publication to a third party and cause defamation. As shown in the “fax case” of 1994, defamatory publication need only be a facsimile message with a list of questions pertaining to a defamatory or accusation which is unmerited. To be defamed, there needs only be a third party, which is easily achievable, with a nation eager to be informed of any misdoings, illegal or suggestive news.

The ability to blog and maintain a personal website is appealing to millions of people around the world. Although it is a way to express oneself, the ramifications implied can be catastrophic, as seen by the offensive language used to describe Transport Minister Lynne Kosky in a blog by a liberal candidate. Termed by the colloquial expression “dooced,” it is now commonplace for individuals to be discharged from employment for posting on personal websites. The popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace has also encouraged the quantity of slanderous material to be increased. Not only is there the repercussion of being insinuated in defamatory behaviour by an individual’s employer, but similarly caught for taking sick leave undeservingly and publically posting it for the world to see. This inevitably lead to a man in Sydney being exposed by his comments online, and being relieved from his employment with scrutiny, vindication and defamation from all corners around the world.

In John Stuart Mills essay, On Liberty, it clearly identifies libertarian values of freedom of expression and the individual right to publish material outside the realm of inadvertent acceptance. For even if all of humanity minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one opinion that he, if he had the power, in silencing all of humanity . This premise is held in the American constitutions right to free speech, but inadvertently absent initially within Australia laws. Although asserted in the high court case of Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation that freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution is a qualified privilege unable to be imposed, it is far from the sanctity and security possessed by the first American amendment of freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly.

There are numerous implications with defamation in relation to new media formats. The ambiguity and lack of coherent defence pleadings seems to be at the forefront of concern. Disconcerting is the lack of ability to stand against oppression and corruption to vindicate those who wrongfully abuse their power. As it stands, an individual may have invaluable information pertaining to corruption of someone in power, an example being a concealed inciter of Nazism, and although a potential whistle blower may see the abhorrent pain, suffering and evil being committed, they are incapable to speak out and defame an individual because of the ramification their actions could cause. Although defamation laws endeavour to provide justice for individuals against false accusation, vilification and slanderous allegory, it clearly appears to be a tiresome battle. Only individuals with funds to defend supposed false accusation can attempt to recover their destroyed reputation, and those who have money, power and will, employ the right to silence the truth and subvert justice to their own needs.

Although an accusation may be harmful, it should not be stifled, for even if that opinion seems fallacious it could still contain evidence of truth. If we conceal what we don’t want heard, we are merely hiding injustices, marginalised voices and different ideologies. It is only through the outspoken and inspiring decrees of individuals that we progress.

Bibliography

Butler Amy, Watch Your Language, 4/10/08

CityNews.ca, Facebook Leads To Boss Catching Worker 2/10/08

CityNews.ca, Career Advice 9/9/08

Filimon Peonidis. Freedom of Expression, Autonomy, and Defamation. Law and Philosophy: An International Journal for Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy. Ja 98. 17(1), 1-17.

Hardin Russell, Journal of Ethics: An International Philosophical Review. 2004. 8(1), 77-95.

Head Michael, ‘The Military Call-Out Legislation Some Legal and Constitutional Questions’ (2001) 29 Federal Law Review 273.

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520

Mill John Stuart, On Liberty, < http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html> 9/9/08

Pearson Mark, The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law, Allen & Unwin, 3rd Edition, 2007.

Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1297; (2001) 182 ALR 617 (‘Tampa’).