Society often requires individuals to make reparations for harm inflicted accidently or on purpose. A variety of torts seek to protect individual interests as a result of the acts or omissions of others. However a separate tort needs to be implemented to ensure your privacy is protected. This submission will cover a description of the law of defamation, an analysis of the 2005 defamation reform, and a recommendation of the most suitable legal course of action.
2 Current law
2.1 Elements
Defamation occurs when a person publishes to a third party defamatory matter relating to the plaintiff. For the plaintiff to be able to prove that defamation occurred the plaintiff must convince the court that the three elements of defamation occurred.
2.1.1 Defamatory
…show more content…
Introducing this Tort will help Australian citizens however it is not urgent, and should have further discussions. This tort of privacy will be achieved by passing a bill through Parliament, however it should also be submitted to a debate. “The removal of a public interest or public benefit requirements is likely to increase pressure for a separate tort of privacy” (stim 4), this push will create an opportunity for a bill to be passed for a tort of privacy, “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks” (stim 5). Without this tort it gives the media the opportunity to invade Australian citizen’s privacy. This tort is important as people should have a right to privacy as “material doesn’t have to be in the public interest” anymore as the new Defamation Act has removed this “so [the media] can end up publishing private gossip” (stim 1), and usually get away with it as Defamation doesn’t protect privacy. “The protection of reputation is an entirely separate interest to the protection of privacy and is more appropriately dealt with through means other than defamation law” (stim 3), therefore there needs to a tort implemented to protect people’s
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
Villiers, M. d. (2008). Substantial Truth in Defamation Law. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.
A glaring question raised from the inspection of institutional rules on arbitration is whether privacy and confidentiality are different or not. To answer this very question, a crucial distinction should be made between both the terms. They have been presumed to be the core principles of any arbitral proceedings; this does not mean these two different concepts are implied to be one and the same thing. In fact they are corollaries to each other, since the reason of privacy is the concern for confidentiality. Privacy will be meaningless without confidentiality. Various scholars have made quite a number of distinctions as to what is exactly the concept of privacy and confidentiality.
The Information Age has emerged with speed, excitement, and great promise. The electronic eyes and ears of technology follow us everywhere. There are those enamored with the rush of technology, who b elieve that the best of worlds is one in which everyone can peer into everyone else's lives. In fact, we now live in a world consumed with "the ecstacy of communication" (Karaim 76). Americans line up to reveal their darkest secrets of their m ost intimate moments, or just "hang out their dirty laundry" on the numerous television talk shows. The more exposure, the better. So it may be absurd that we should worry that our privacy is being endangered, our personal life and even our se crets made public. The loss of privacy is on the fast track, and the high-tech Information Age is a willing conspirator. Somebody, somewhere, may know something about you that you'd prefer to keep private: how much you earn a year, what you paid for yo ur car or house, whether you've had certain diseases, what your job history is. Your medical, financial, consumer, and employment records are in computers and may be flying through cyberspace without your knowledge or consent.
Like most countries and especially the United States their inhabitants enjoy a certain level of privacy. People don’t generally want intimate information to be accessible to the public eye. In fact many people go to great lengths to hide everything about themselves. What exactly is the definition of privacy? Well, privacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. This information includes facts, images (ex: photographs and videotapes), and disparaging opinions. When over zealous law enforcement officials demand access to telephone conversations, e-mail or other electronic communication they are violating the unwritten code of privacy. When organizations from the private sector purchase intimate information about medical records either for commercial purposes, or to challenge your insurance eligibility or employment suitability. Unfortunatly this is a common practice in the United States and it is wrong.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
...protect those who printed claims, even though they may be untrue, by disagreeing that they had the right to do so. Further, the defenses of ‘justification’ and ‘fair comment’ have been replaced with ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’. Another major change in the law of defamation deals with tortfeasors who do not reside in the UK, an EU member state or a state which is part of the Lugano Convention. The change means that the UK court does not have to perceive any case if it can be proved the UK would be the most suitable place to deal with the action against the tortfeasor. A particular publication law has also been recognized, which accommodates the occurrence of online news stories. In this law, a one year restriction starts when a story is issued. Every time the story is repeated or watched, a single action cannot be brought about by the claimant against the publisher.
The fight for privacy rights are by no means a recent conflict. In fact, there was conflict even back in the days before the revolutionary war. One of the most well-known cases took place in England, ...
When defamation comes to practice and people feels threatened with a defamation suit, the biggest focus is on whether or not there is something offensive. Although this is important there is an additional, more practical way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. And if the right was present there are few possible defences. Firstly what was said is true, secondly there was a duty to provide information, and lastly it was an expression of an opinion.
Are the benefits of electronic communication at the expense of our privacy? How does the Internet affect the availability and use of our personal information? The Internet brings another dimension to the issue of privacy. Whether you are voting on-line or buying a book from Amazon.com you must consider how much personal information has been collected about you, with or without your consent, and how it can be used. Policies governing privacy on the Internet are still not clearly defined and many on-line users do not understand how the information they provide will be used. How much...
Perhaps the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said it best when he claimed that privacy is no longer a “social norm.” Virtually everyone has a smart phone and everyone has social media. We continue to disclose private information willingly and the private information we’re not disclosing willingly is being extracted from our accounts anyway. Technology certainly makes these things possible. However, there is an urgent need to make laws and regulations to protect against the stuff we’re not personally disclosing. It’s unsettling to think we are living in 1984 in the 21st century.
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
Created for communication, the internet, both the world wide web and the deep web, is the greatest way to transmit information between multiple platforms. The exponential growth of the internet only increased its use in the world, with a myriad of digital services, like the media, articles, forums, and entertainment and social platforms, especially twitter, youtube, facebook, and multiplayer gaming, using it as a vehicle for communication and spreading information, and possibly also influence. The uses of the Internet is good to know, sure, but what does it have to do with the concept of privacy? Today, the involvement of the internet with privacy gets quite convoluted, and countless issues, successes, controversies, and terrors have occurred
The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are apart of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose (Privacy Concerns 1). “Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right…” (Privacy concerns 2). In 1998, the Human Rights Act, the act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals have, came into force; it incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 which protects the right to private and family life. Was the first time there was a generalized right to privacy recognized by law in this country.
2013 jan 04: B.1. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. . ProQuest Staff. "At Issue: Privacy and the Press."