Federal Attorney-general Daryl’s Williams’s further explanation and fortification of the Federal Government’s position on free speech and its intervention in the Theophanous case is most welcome. Mr Williams has been branded anti-free-speech for saying he rejects the constitutional basis for the Theophanous position, namely that the Constitution carries an implication that there must be freedom of political communication and that state defamation laws must be read down accordingly.
Mr Williams said defamation laws should be made by elected parliaments and said he would urge the states to reform their laws and make them uniform. Media commentators rightly scoffed that the states had been trying to do this for 20 years without success.
Mr Williams, in a response to this criticism published in The Canberra Times on Saturday, has now given strong hints that unless the states do something, he will look at Commonwealth legislation, within the limits of Commonwealth power, to ensure there is greater freedom of political discussion.
That is a most welcome development. The states will need that sort of catalyst if anything is to be done.
The essential point is that media organisations should not be put to the near impossible burden of having to prove the truth of everything published, because they will self-censor. However, they should act reasonably and honestly. They should have to make reasonable inquiries, give people a reasonable chance to respond, and only publish when it is reasonable to do so. The difference sounds technical, but it is of great practical importance.
Brings law like other professions…concentrates on conduct not elusive proof.
NSW dud
It may well be that Mr Williams has a point when he questions the Theopahnous constituional development,,, where will it end. Judges can imply a lot.
He certainly has a point when he agree with qual priv instead of truth.. expericenced QC