|
本文是法律专业的澳洲essay范例，题目是“Impact of Defamation Laws诽谤法的影响”，澳大利亚现行的诽谤法旨在保护和平衡社会中个人的名誉和言论自由。对这些现行法律所提供的结果对关键利益相关者的公平程度进行了彻底调查;法律，原告和被告。所发现的影响是积极的，并且就这些法律是否应该改革的主要问题作出了合理的决定。 The current defamation laws in Australia aims to protect and balance reputation and freedom of speech of individuals in the society. These current laws have been thoroughly investigated on how fair the outcomes they provide are to the key stake holders; the law, plaintiff and defendant. The impacts found were positive and a well justified decision has been made on the main issue as to whether these laws should be reformed or not.
On 1 January 2006, uniform defamation legislation was passed in all Australian States, based upon model provisions agreed to by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Legalpedia, 2017). In Queensland, the Defamation Act 2005 (Queensland Consolidated Acts, 2016) annulled the Defamation Act 1899 (Qld) (1899 Act) (Legalpedia, 2017). The 2005 Act now governs the law of defamation in Queensland (Legalpedia, 2017). The 2005 Act will apply to defamatory matter published after 1 January 2006. If the defamation occurred previous to 1 January 2006, the 1889 Act will apply (Defamation factsheet, 2017). The 2005 Act does not define the meaning of the elements of a defamation action (Defamation factsheet, 2017). Instead, they are defined by the common law, or the body of “judge-made” law that has been established through cases decided by the courts (Defamation factsheet, 2017). The plaintiff must prove the following in order to sue for defamation. Publication, this means that the material is made known to a third person other than the person being defamed. Publication can be oral, in writing or in pictures (Legalpedia, 2017). The plaintiff must also be able to show that the defamatory matter could reasonably be taken to be about him or her (Legalpedia, 2017). Lastly, the plaintiff must show that there was Defamatory matter. This will be determined on whether the material was capable of conveying the defamatory meaning alleged by the plaintiff to an ordinary person (Legalpedia, 2017). If this is answered positively, the next question for determination is: whether, in fact, an ordinary person would have taken the publication as conveying the meaning alleged (Legalpedia, 2017). 2006年1月1日，基于总检察长常务委员会同意的示范条款，澳大利亚所有州通过了统一的诽谤立法(法律百科全书，2017年)。在昆士兰州，《2005年诽谤法案》(昆士兰州联合法案，2016年)废除了《1899年诽谤法案》(Qld)(1899年法案)(法律百科全书，2017年)。2005年法案现在管辖昆士兰州的诽谤法(Legalpedia, 2017)。2005年法案将适用于2006年1月1日后公布的诽谤事项。如果诽谤发生在2006年1月1日之前，则适用1889年法案(诽谤实况，2017年)。2005年法案没有定义诽谤诉讼要素的含义(诽谤实况表，2017年)。相反，它们是由普通法或通过法院判决的案件建立的“法官制定的”法律体系来定义的(《诽谤概况》，2017年)。原告必须证明以下事实以便提起诽谤诉讼。发表，这意味着该材料是已知的第三人，而不是被诽谤的人。出版可以是口头、书面或图片(法律百科全书，2017)。原告还必须能够证明诽谤事件可以合理地被认为是关于他或她的(Legalpedia, 2017)。最后，原告必须证明存在诽谤行为。这将取决于该材料是否能够将原告声称的诽谤意义传达给普通人(Legalpedia, 2017)。如果答案是肯定的，下一个需要确定的问题是:事实上，一个普通人是否会将该出版物视为所宣称的含义(Legalpedia, 2017)。 According to the defamation laws, for a defendant to be successful, either of the following have to be present. The first defence is truth. Under the uniform defamation laws, truth alone is a complete defence (Law hand book, 2017). Therefore, it is not essential for a defendant to prove that the publication related to a matter of public interest or public benefit (Law hand book, 2017). Another defence is Absolute privilege. In some circumstances, freedom of communication is considered to be so important that the participants are completely protected from being legally responsible for defamation (Law hand book, 2017). Absolute privilege is recognised by the common law and by section 27 of the Defamation Act (Queensland Consolidated Acts, 2016). This applies to members of parliament in the course of parliamentary proceedings. This means that the person who makes the defamatory statement cannot be charged with defamation even if he/she knew the statement was false and intentionally made the statement in order to damage the affected person’s reputation (Law hand book, 2017). The Protected Disclosure Act 2012 (Parliament of Victoria, 2017) confers absolute privilege on disclosures, made on reasonable grounds, that a public body or public officer has been involved in, or proposes to engage in, improper conduct. The disclosure must be made to the suitable person, as set out in section 6 of that Act. Another defence is Qualified privilege. The defence of “qualified privilege” protects honest statement in such situations (Law hand book, 2017). Qualified privilege is recognised by the common law and by the Defamation Act. The Defamation Act does not affect the common law defence of qualified privilege. In circumstances protected by qualified privilege, a plaintiff can only successfully sue for defamation by proving that the defendant was motivated by malice when making the defamatory statement (Law hand book, 2017). The last defence is Fair comment. The common law defence of fair comment applies to comments/opinions conveyed about matters of public interest (Law hand book, 2017). The Defamation Act (s 31) provides a defence of honest opinion that is similar to the common law fair comment defence (Law hand book, 2017). 根据诽谤法，被告要胜诉，必须有以下两种情况之一在场。首先要为真理辩护。在统一的诽谤法下，真相本身就是一种完整的辩护(法律手册，2017年)。因此，被告不需要证明该出版物涉及公共利益或公共利益事项(Law hand book, 2017)。另一种辩护是绝对特权。在某些情况下，传播自由被认为是如此重要，以至于参与者完全可以免受诽谤的法律责任(法律手册，2017年)。绝对特权被普通法和《诽谤法》(昆士兰州联合法案，2016年)第27条所承认。这适用于议会程序中的议员。这意味着，做出诽谤性陈述的人即使明知其陈述是虚假的，并故意做出诽谤性陈述以损害受影响的人的名誉，也不会被指控诽谤(Law hand book, 2017)。《2012受保护披露法》(维多利亚州议会，2017年)赋予公共机构或公职人员在有合理理由的情况下披露的绝对特权，这些披露涉及或打算参与不当行为。该披露必须向该法案第6节所规定的合适人员进行。另一个辩护理由是“资格特权”。对“合格特权”的辩护保护在这种情况下的诚实陈述(法律手册，2017年)。资格特权是普通法和《诽谤法》所认可的。《诽谤法》不影响普通法对资格特权的辩护。在受资格特权保护的情况下，原告只有证明被告在诽谤性陈述时是出于恶意，才能提起诽谤诉讼(Law hand book, 2017)。最后的辩护是公平评论。普通法对公平评论的辩护适用于对公共利益事项所传达的评论/意见(law hand book, 2017)。《诽谤法》(第31条)提供了诚实意见的辩护，类似于普通法的公平评论辩护(法律手册，2017年)。
Defamation laws have both positive and negative impacts on citizens in the society. The laws helps to protect the reputation of individuals. This can be seen in the case Mikie v Farley (Whitburn, 2014). Mr Farley, who was 20 at the time of the judgment, is the son of the school’s former head of music and arts, who was described as a “gentle man who had a number of health issues” (Whitburn, 2014). Young Mr Farley graduated from high school in 2011 and had never been taught by Ms Mickle. In November 2012, he posted a series of defamatory comments on Twitter and Facebook about Ms Mickle. This affected Ms Mickle causing her to leave work. There was evidence that, in the absence of the comments, the senior teacher would have continued teaching as she had before “until she reached the age of 65 which is in about seven years’ time” (Whitburn, 2014), which is a clear indication that her reputation was damaged. The defendant did apologise but later claimed ‘truth’ as a defence. The judge ruled that since the defendants claim of truth contradicted the apology, it was invalid. Judge Elkaim ordered Mr Farley to pay $85,000 in compensatory damages (Whitburn, 2014). He also ruled that the young man’s conduct in response to the case warranted an additional $20,000 in aggravated damages (Whitburn, 2014). This shows that defamation laws impact society positively; as justice was served for Ms Mickle. This is despite the fact that the defamation act does not include online defamation. 根据诽谤法，被告要胜诉，必须有以下两种情况之一在场。首先要为真理辩护。在统一的诽谤法下，真相本身就是一种完整的辩护(法律手册，2017年)。因此，被告不需要证明该出版物涉及公共利益或公共利益事项(Law hand book, 2017)。另一种辩护是绝对特权。在某些情况下，传播自由被认为是如此重要，以至于参与者完全可以免受诽谤的法律责任(法律手册，2017年)。绝对特权被普通法和《诽谤法》(昆士兰州联合法案，2016年)第27条所承认。这适用于议会程序中的议员。这意味着，做出诽谤性陈述的人即使明知其陈述是虚假的，并故意做出诽谤性陈述以损害受影响的人的名誉，也不会被指控诽谤(Law hand book, 2017)。《2012受保护披露法》(维多利亚州议会，2017年)赋予公共机构或公职人员在有合理理由的情况下披露的绝对特权，这些披露涉及或打算参与不当行为。该披露必须向该法案第6节所规定的合适人员进行。另一个辩护理由是“资格特权”。对“合格特权”的辩护保护在这种情况下的诚实陈述(法律手册，2017年)。资格特权是普通法和《诽谤法》所认可的。《诽谤法》不影响普通法对资格特权的辩护。在受资格特权保护的情况下，原告只有证明被告在诽谤性陈述时是出于恶意，才能提起诽谤诉讼(Law hand book, 2017)。最后的辩护是公平评论。普通法对公平评论的辩护适用于对公共利益事项所传达的评论/意见(law hand book, 2017)。《诽谤法》(第31条)提供了诚实意见的辩护，类似于普通法的公平评论辩护(法律手册，2017年)。 Furthermore, in the case Hockey v Fairfax media (Whitbourn, 2015), politician Joe hockey sued Fairfax media on the account of defamation for tweeting the words ‘Treasurer for sale’. The defence claimed qualified privilege relating to reasonableness and public interest as defence. Federal Court Judge, Richard White however rejected the defence as he found it unreasonable for Fairfax media to publish material with a defamatory meaning to promote interest in its stories. Judge white upheld the plaintiffs claim that the words conveyed that he was engaged in corrupt conduct and awarded him a total $200000 in damages (Whitbourn, 2015). Defamation laws provided justice for the plaintiff who was a politician unlike Politicians in the US face an uphill battle bringing defamation actions, due to the public figure doctrine which subjects defamation law to freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment (Whitbourn, 2015). There is however, a dark side to this case under defamation. Judge White dismissed Mr Hockey’s case over the substantive articles promoted by the tweets and poster. He found that the articles in the Herald and the age were of ‘considerable public interest’ and did not defame the plaintiff by suggesting he was corrupt or took bribes. This was so even though the herald and the age used the same headline ‘Treasurer for sale’ which was found defamatory on the tweets and posters of Fairfax Media. 此外，在Hockey v Fairfax media (Whitbourn, 2015)一案中，政客Joe Hockey以诽谤罪起诉Fairfax media，因为后者在推特上发布了“出售司库”(treasury for sale)的字眼。辩护人要求辩护人享有与合理性和公共利益有关的资格特权。然而，联邦法院法官理查德·怀特驳回了辩护，因为他认为费尔法克斯媒体为了提高人们对其报道的兴趣而发表具有诽谤意义的材料是不合理的。怀特法官支持原告的说法，即这些话传达出他参与了腐败行为，并判给他总计20万美元的损害赔偿金(惠特伯恩，2015年)。诽谤法为作为政治家的原告提供了正义，而美国的政治家则面临着提起诽谤诉讼的艰难战斗，这是由于公众人物主义将诽谤法置于第一修正案的言论自由保护之下(Whitbourn, 2015)。但是，诽谤事件也有其阴暗的一面。怀特法官驳回了霍基的案件，原因是他的推文和海报推动了实质性的文章。他发现《先驱报》和《时代报》的文章具有“相当大的公共利益”，并没有通过暗示原告腐败或受贿来诋毁他。尽管《先驱报》和《时代报》使用了同样的标题“出售司库”，这在费尔法克斯传媒的推特和海报上被发现带有诽谤性。 In both the above cases, the current defamation laws served proper justice. A woman whose reputation as a teacher was damaged received proper compensation. A politician who was defamed and falsely been accused being corrupt was able to clear his name, save his reputation and also claim damages due to the current defamation laws. Recent arguments have said that the current defamation would need to be reformed as they pose a risk to free speech (Rolph, 2016). This could not be further from the truth. Defamation law seeks to strike a balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of speech (Arts Law Centre of Australia, 2015). Unlike laws in countries like the USA, where the media and people are allowed to say whatever they want about the politicians and damage their reputations due to the public figure doctrine which subjects defamation law to freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment (Whitbourn, 2015), Australian defamation laws actual try to serve their true purpose which is to protect reputations of individuals and at same time keep freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not suppressed under the Defamation Act 2005 (Queensland Government, 2016), in fact it is only defamation if it is false. The reason the media is focused on reforming defamation, is because they want to get away with saying whatever they want. Similar to the case Hockey v Fairfax media, the media put false statements in order to make it interesting. This does not seem to be fair to society. Overall the current defamation laws are perfect the way they are and are even performing better than other countries like the USA. 在上述两种情况下，现行的诽谤法都得到了适当的公正对待。一名妇女教师的名誉受到损害，她得到了适当的赔偿。被诬陷为腐败的政治家，根据现行的《诽谤法》，可以洗清自己的名字，保住自己的名誉，并要求赔偿。最近的争论表明，目前的诽谤将需要改革，因为它们对言论自由构成了风险(Rolph, 2016)。这完全不是事实。诽谤法寻求在名誉保护和言论自由之间取得平衡(澳大利亚艺术法律中心，2015年)。与美国等国家的法律不同，在美国，媒体和人们被允许对政客说任何他们想说的话，并损害他们的声誉，这是由于公众人物主义，诽谤法受到第一修正案的言论自由保护(Whitbourn, 2015)，澳大利亚的诽谤法的真正目的是保护个人的名誉，同时保持言论自由。根据《2005年诽谤法案》(昆士兰州政府，2016年)，言论自由不受压制，事实上，只有当它是虚假的，它才是诽谤。媒体之所以专注于改革诽谤，是因为他们想要为所欲为。与霍基诉费尔法克斯媒体案类似，媒体为了使其有趣而发布虚假声明。这似乎对社会不公平。总的来说，目前的诽谤法是完美的，甚至比美国等其他国家表现得更好。 The tort of Defamation aims to protect and balance reputation and freedom of speech. The current defamation legislation the Defamation Act 2005 repealed the Defamation Act 1899 (Qld) have up until today been able to keep this aim. In both the cases, the laws were able to provide justice for the society. They have served the society positively and do not require any reforms. 诽谤侵权的目的在于保护和平衡名誉与言论自由。现行的诽谤立法《2005年诽谤法》废除了《1899年诽谤法》(Qld)，直到今天仍能保持这一目标。在这两个案例中，法律都能够为社会提供正义。他们积极地为社会服务，不要求任何改革。 Bibliography参考书目
以上是澳洲essay写作范例，留学生论文相关专业范文素材资料，尽在本网，可以随时查阅参考。本站也提供多国留学生课程作业写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。 |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
