If Campbell Newman were the governor of an American state, rather than the premier of an Australian one, he wouldn’t even contemplate suing a broadcaster over a debate about political donations and the government’s approval of a mine.
If Joe Hockey were the US treasury secretary rather than the Australian treasurer, he wouldn’t be in a position to sue a newspaper publisher over stories about his political fundraising activities.
On the other hand, if Tony Abbott and Peter Costello were American politicians and wanted to sue the media over false allegations about their personal lives, it’s arguable whether they would have been able to win damages (as they did in 1998 in Australia).
Under the First Amendment of the US constitution, the media is protected in doing its legitimate job — reporting, analysing and discussing the issues of the day and holding governments and politicians to account.
In suing the media over their political (not personal) behaviour, Newman and Hockey are trashing the role of a free press in a parliamentary democracy.
We’re all Charlie, it seems, until the media upsets political leaders just by fulfilling its place as the fourth estate.
So what can be done apart from column inches of whinges?
JohnB, the first thing that “might be done” is writers try to understand the relative merits of the two political and legal systems her and in the U.S.
Americanising our society even further might delight both avaricious lawyers and media outlets wanting juicy rather than informative stories; but whether it would be a plus for Australian society is a horse of a different colour.
The laws need changing, JohnB. That’s what!
Journalists should hound ALL political parties on this question, until they get satisfactory answers. If they don’t get assurances that the laws will be changed, then write articles and tell US all about it.
At the very least, the public deserves to know which political parties think the current arrangements, and no changes, are okay. If the fully informed public do not react, then we get the government we deserve!!
Norman, I was thinking more along the lines of “Please bring me solutions rather than problems”.
Since the writer was happy to invest her time in identifying what might be considered to be a problem, then why did she not complete the job with a recommendation for action?
Defamation actions seem so often to serve one of two functions, which are (1) to scare into silence those who might speak, or (2) to pay for home extensions and fund retirements. Neither serves a wider social purpose.
The American Freedom of Speech approach appears, to me at least, to have led to as many problems as it has prevented, principal amongst which is the consequent lack of fairness and discipline in some publications, which are able to hide behind their “constitutional rights” as they ignore the personal rights of individuals.
Both systems are busted. What is the answer?
Indeed, who can ever forget that incomparable comedy duo Abbott & Costello vs Ellis.