Senator Linda Reynolds from Western Australia is already involved in a tricky defamation battle against her former worker Brittany Higgins. Now Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is reportedly is considering a lawsuit independent MP Zali Steggall to she told him “Stop being racist.”
It is not any longer possible to disregard the remarkable enthusiasm which our political class has shown in its response to real or perceived insults, including some who invoke freedom of speech while denigrating others, to defamation suits.
It isn’t a great image when the powerful sue the less powerful. It is especially bad for a democracy when politicians who haven’t only power but additionally privileged access to communication platforms use legal means which can be more likely to bankrupt all but essentially the most well-resourced defendants.
The freedom to specific one’s opinion
Flawed democracies like Singapore are rightly sentenced to make use of defamation law and compliant courts against political dissidents.
While the situation in Australia is less problematic, our defamation laws have historically favored an individual's status over freedom of expression.
An often cited case in contrast is the United States, where politicians and other public figures can only achieve a libel suit in the event that they prove that the publisher knew that the authors were spreading a falsehood or that he was reckless (very negligent) with regard to the reality.
Expressions of opinion – corresponding to that Donald Trump is a racist – practically never violate the law. In the words of the Supreme Court of the United States:
It is a cherished American privilege to have the opportunity to specific one's opinion on all public institutions, even when it will not be at all times done with perfect taste.
The US approach is predicated on the classical liberal idea that “the best cure for bad advice is good advice”: freedom of expression needs to be fundamentally free, and a public debate within the marketplace of ideas will sort out right from improper.
Conditions for freedom of expression
The argument without cost speech without guardrails may lose traction in a post-factual world. Many modern listeners, whether or not they wish to or not, occupy echo chambers and filter bubbles by which prejudices are reinforced moderately than challenged.
It is sort of as if the Supreme Court of Australia had foreseen this in a defamation case from 1997 It found that the Australian Constitution doesn’t prescribe complete freedom of political communication. Reasonable limits are appropriate because widespread, irresponsible political communication can damage the country's political fabric.
Although the High Court concluded Text interpretation The Court's position is predicated on constitutional considerations moderately than deeper philosophical considerations; moderately, it reflects modern fascinated about how free speech needs to be regulated in a democracy.
But the political appetite for defamation litigation on this country suggests that the law has not yet struck the correct balance.
The purpose of the defamation law
Recent reforms In the realm of defamation law, an attempt has been made to forestall frivolous claims by introducing a minimum requirement of significant injury to status. Perhaps a greater approach would have been to assume that defamation is trivial.
Unlike other civil torts, which regularly lead to personal injury or property damage, the consequences of defamation on an individual's status are intangible.
A wrongfully damaged status can normally be restored by a public apology and correction, perhaps accompanied by a small amount of compensation for hurt feelings and to forestall further defamation.
It is due to this fact a mystery why courts and legislators have allowed defamation cases to turn into among the most complex and expensive civil suits of all, and why damages so big.
A case that pulls plenty of attention can easily Millions of dollars in legal costs on either side that dwarf the ultimate compensation, which could itself amount to a whole lot of hundreds of dollars.
Paul Braven/AAP
Taiwan offers a useful contrast. Politicians can sue for defamation there, however the procedures are relatively easy and the damages much smaller – one could say, in proportion to the damage caused.
In each approaches, the successful party to the lawsuit – be it the publisher or the person whose status has suffered – is rehabilitated. And that’s precisely what it’s about.
Where only the rich can afford to claim their rights and where the defence of 1's own status takes a back seat to the dissemination of complaints, the punishment of opponents and the enrichment of lawyers, defamation law is dysfunctional.
Should politicians sue?
It is typically said that politicians mustn’t have the opportunity to sue for defamation in any respect because they themselves can say whatever they need under the protection of the law. parliamentary privilegeimmune from defamation and other speech laws.
Parliamentarians enjoy this protection, but their personal profit is secondary. Parliamentary immunity, like judicial immunity, exists because the character of democratic (and judicial) deliberations requires that anything might be said.
If a politician leaves Parliament and repeats a defamatory statement he first made inside Parliament, he risks being sued. David Leyonhjelm I learned this the hard way and Steggall also can.
It is affordable that politicians must also have the correct to sue for defamation. But these rights should be consistent with what is suitable in a democratic society.
One option to make defamation law more consistent with democratic expectations is perhaps to return cases to state courts and restore a crucial role to juries. overwhelming majority of the cases are brought before the Federal Court, where they’re decided by a single judge.
When a public figure claims that his or her status has been damaged within the eyes of the general public, we must always test that factual claim with members of that public under judicial supervision. That might provide a welcome dose of common sense.
image credit : theconversation.com