Australian Perception, Media Law and Ethics Paper Example

Research Abstract

There is a challenge for judges in making decisions regarding expression issues in the media. In the chosen article, Robertson argues that for three years, a racial discrimination case involving a QUT staff and students has not been able to be decided and this has led to the accuser seek an opportunity to revive the case for appeal. However, the judge dismisses the case based on ethical issues overriding the legal dilemma.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The argument is that in some legal issues, the law could not be the best point of reference in coming up with a final solution to a case. Ethics plays a huge role in giving justice to the involved parties. In the case of Cindy Prior and the three students, the judge concluded that the situation needs dismissal as it does not promote the human rights for all the involved parties. In this case, where the law and ethics collide in a court case, ethics will succeed to support the morality of the decision that promotes fairness to the issue at hand.

The approach to the argument is based on choosing a presented topic in the media and critically analyzing the legal and ethical issues emerging from the text. Evidence from Australian media law and ethics was used including supporting information from relevant books, the MEAA Code of ethics and similar media articles from other reporters. The rule of concern in the text, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, S18C was critically analyzed to explain the problem it raises regarding its limitations to freedom of expression in particular instances.

The legal and ethical issues from the article imply that the purpose of law should not be to impose regulations or provisions that hinder the freedom of expression to journalists or any individual that utilizes the media to express information of public interest. It is recommended for the law, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to be amended to relate its implications to freedom of speech. It needs to incorporate clear, enough and precise provisions that do not interfere with the freedom of speech.

Research Paper: Australian Perception, Media Law and Ethics

The chosen topic for discussion is based on the Guardian news article "Judge denies QUT staff member's appeal in racial discrimination case" written by Robertson 2017. The research paper will critically analyze the story from the media law and ethics perspective. The aim is to identify the critical legal and ethical issues and provide an academic opinion on these issues supported by research and examples.

Legal and Ethical Issues

The article talks about a staff who wants the court judge to provide an opportunity to appeal a racial discrimination case. However, the judge declined and closed the case as it presents conflicting legal and ethical issues that require more consideration of preserving the human rights of each.

Legal Issues

Cindy prior the accuser in the racial discrimination case wants the judge to accept her opportunity to revive a claim against three Queensland University of Technology (QUT) students. These learners made Facebook comments regarding the only indigenous computer room where the QUT staff member worked (Robertson, 2017). The accuser wanted to be paid damages for the breach of the law, the Racial Discrimination Act. The judge denied the appeal and also extended the time of lodging it. Other lawyers were also advised to use their skills, knowledge, and experience to stop the proceedings from continuing.

Evidence shows that the students' comments were not offensive towards Prior as per the media law. Wood's comment was not racial in that the QUT could not stop segregation with segregation. This comment was only against racial discrimination and not intended to offend any individual. Powell's comment was just a humorous word of "white supremacist" associating the computer lab with the Whites. According to the judge, this comment was only an intended humorous statement but poorly done and whose intention was not to offend Indigenous people. The third student, Thwaite's comment was "ITT niggers" which was an offensive statement. However, the accused denied owning the account and the federal court judge did not have evidence to prove otherwise. These three accounts do not have the chance of succeeding on appeal as per the court.

Prior's complaint was based on Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 that regards an action to be unlawful when a person has an offensive behavior based on color, race, national and ethnic origin. A legal issue of the court failing to put into consideration the impact of Indigenous students at QUT that they are not entitled to the computer room arises from the article is evident. Such an account is provided as an exceptional measure under the Australian and International Discrimination law. A significant question that arises is that the International law seems to overlap the Australian law and dominates decisions regarding discrimination.

The article critics Section 18C of the Act and the Australian Human Rights Commission by stating that the case has continued for three years down the line after it happened and became an expensive legal action and publicity (Robertson, 2017). Therefore, section 18C of the Act needs to be reformed and increase the obstacles to racial discrimination complaints. The accuser has been suffering stress from online threats and abuse due to increased publicity of the case, and this prompted Cindy Prior to raising the claim to the Australian federal police. Prior's solicitor is also affected by the violent threat reported to the police and had to take a stress leave.

Ethical Issues

The ethical issues arising from the racial discrimination case is that the court realizes the moral responsibility of a judge. All people have human rights that must be respected. The judge recognized the suffering of the students both the accuser and the accused in the unending legal proceedings. The federal circuit court dismissed the case on the basis that the involved parties have suffered more than any other person will suffer in their lifetime. The students were experiencing legal costs that they could not afford. The accuser was also demanded to pay for the students' legal fees of the prior case. It was also possible for the accuser to end up running bankruptcy if the amount continues to accumulate to more legal suits with the prior legal costs not yet cleared.

Ethically, the three students had made offensive comments on the Facebook page in 2013 which suggested that Cindy Prior had asked them as White students to leave the computer room. The basis of the original complaint in court regarding the issue was handled by the Australian Human Rights Commission that based their argument on the provisions in Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The article shows that the effect of the Act is impacting on the freedoms of expression for some of the parties in the case.

Argument

The legal and ethical issues arising from the article impact on the case and the judge's decision to dismiss it based on these problems affecting the involved parties. Even though the accuser wants an appeal to recover damages from the accused, Cindy Prior has suffered throughout the court process with more legal costs being incurred at every case. The accused are also suffering as students with no income and whose intention of the Facebook comments was not to offend or insult the QUT staff in any way.

The fact that the intention for wood and Powell was to condemn racial discrimination in the University and create humor respectively, these comments do not cause harm to the accuser. Further, Thwaite's comment as racially discriminative cannot be proven through evidence as the account did not belong to him. Therefore, Judge Morris was ethically right to decline the opportunity for Cindy to proceed with the appeal case. The case can be placed and argued based on section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 that provides a fair comment that is an expression of genuine belief as a defense for section 18C.

The MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics states that any person using the media should report and interpret honestly with the intention of promoting accuracy, fairness, and disclosure of relevant facts (Pearson & Polden, 2015). It is unethical for anyone to suppress available facts that are relevant or emphasize on what is distorting. Therefore, the judge gave a fair response by declining Cindy Prior's request for an appeal of the case. Cindy Prior's issue against the students is against the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics as it emphasizes unnecessary personal characteristics such as race which is refuted in the ethical standards. The code of ethics also requires that information should be attributed to the source. Therefore, the judge's view that the appeal case has no chance of succeeding was accurate. Cindy Prior and the court could not prove that Thwaite's Facebook comment was not anonymous as the account did not belong to him. It is ethically wrong for a judge to agree on a source without first making consideration of the motives. The judge respected Thwaite's confidence in his argument that the account was not his.

The article presents a case that legal and ethical issues collide and judges need a particular point of deciding on such cases. There are instances when legal problems require moral decisions to arrive at a final and constructive solution. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission based on the earlier cases regarding the issue on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. According to the Human Rights Commission (2018), all Australians are protected by the Racial Discrimination Act from any form of discrimination including race, descent, color, immigrant status, ethnic religion or nationality. The Act also provides obligations to Australia under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Australia is committed. It is the right for all Australians to be treated equally.

Even though the Act provides that a person has violated the law by promoting offensive behavior through discrimination based race, it does not provide the extent to which the law is applicable. Ethics should guide judges in these instances of a dilemma when the law seems to go to an extreme of violating the rights of a person. The case has been proceeding for three years without a final decision. Ethically, the Facebook comments were only fair and genuine statements from the students. Critics in the article condemn the law based on this ground. There should be a timeframe for concluding such cases where the parties involved do not have to incur expensive legal actions.

Research shows that Section 18C of the Act interferes with the freedom of expression in Australia and many of the cases based on this law have been unsuccessful (Marlow, 2016). The case presented in this article is an example of a controversy of the actions that should be brought to action against university students. In Australia, a thought crime cannot be a real crime, and it will be unethical for a judge to consider it so (Howes, n.d). The media law and ethics provide that no individual should be restricted of their rights to freedom of speech (Pearson and Polden, 2015). Cindy Prior's case for appeal will cause a limitation to freedom of expression for the students and others who would be willing to participate in genuinely responding to the racial discrimination actions within the University. It shows that by the judge accepting the proceeding of the case; it will be a violation of the media law and ethics whereby it is unlawful to restrict the media's ability in reporting matters of interest.

When looking at the actions of students to comment on the Facebook page, it relates to matters of public intere...