Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / 1) INTRODUCTION Globally, one of the most protected rights is freedom of expression
1) INTRODUCTION
Globally, one of the most protected rights is freedom of expression. The freedom of speech is not expressly protected by the Australian Constitution. Australian Constitution can be referred to as an essential structural text, with no enshrined poster of rights. It is in stark contrast to the American model, which has a "Bill of Rights" among the top ten modifications in the US Constitution. Despite this, the High Court has recognized since 1992 that correspondence regarding political and governmental matters obtain an implicit system of legal security, to the degree needed to defend the structures of democratic and accountable administration set in the Australian Constitution's writing and arrangement of the disguised right. In general, freedom of expression exists. Too much, rhetorical emphasis is placed on freedom of expression, although it is not replicated in its legal formation.
Australia limits many individuals and organizations from using their expression. This is both politically and legally. Therefore, for the people of Australia to use their right to expression freely, it has to be put in the national bill of rights. In regard, it will impose alterations over other rights which are put in the constitution. Hence, Australia’s constitution can remain with no corrections. This paper claims that Australia does not require to amend its constitution to allow freedom of expression.
II FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN AUSTRALIA
Right of expression is usually among the first protections guaranteed under any national constitution. International law protects freedom of expression in a certain way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly declares that everybody is subjected to the freedom of thinking and expressing themselves. It entails the self-determination to hold ideas without interference, observe, obtain, and convey information and ideas through every medium and with no respect for borders. Such international treaties, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, embody this right as well. The United Kingdom and New Zealand are nations with no specific printed constitution hence they secure free expression by national human rights instruments.
Australia is the only democratic country specifically that protects right to expression in its constitution. The only legislation in Australia that expressly protect freedom of expression are the Victoria's and Australian Capital Territory's. Such laws apply only to their territory and have no effect on laws enacted by the Federal Parliament. In 1992 the High Court ruled that the relations show that a constitution establishes a form of democratic system, which necessitates that Australians be able to express their views on issues like the proposals of those in search of selection to the Federal Parliament.
The inferred independence was later bound more strictly to the writing and nature of the Constitution, instead of a general definition of representative democracy, by a majority High Court in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1997. In that instance, the High Court established two criteria for deciding if a statute is unconstitutional because indirect rights. The first criterion was whether the legislation effectually hindered freedom of speech regarding political or governmental issues in standings, activity, or consequence. The second criteria were if the statute successfully limits the right, is the law fairly reasonable and tailored to aid a valid end in a way that is consistent in protection of the nation’s legally mandated structure of democratic.
Also, whether, it is accountable to the government and the process prescribed by section 128 for presenting a new proposal to the knowledgeable judgment of individuals. As shown by the test, the implicit right defends communication related to only governmental political issues. It applies to a broad range of topics that can include electorate interests and the function of government. However, it does not apply to certain types of speech, such as conceptual, commercial, social, or scholarly language, unless they are related to administration or a decision that supporters would make by voting. This represents the inferred freedom's narrow justification. It serves solely to express Australia's form of characteristic democracy, as expressed in the constitution in script of sections 7 and 24.
The implication is not intended to represent other purposes often aligned with free expression, such as fostering an exchange of ideas or enabling human independence. In reality, the disguised liberty is not literally a human right in the strictest sense. It is a restriction on Commonwealth authority enshrined in the Constitution to represent systemic needs. Through the action, it may have the unintended consequence of defending a person's choice to partake in radical discussion, but this is purely coincidental.
III INTERPRETION OF CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The absence of general safeguards for free expression in Australian law cannot be regarded as a dispute for enacting that protection. Yet, freedom of expression can be shielded by some methods or practiced even in the lack of legal protections. The Full Federal Court implemented the legality belief to interpret the World Youth Day Act in terms of free speech in order to limit the right to make legislation. As a result, it found that the enforcement of ‘frustrating' conduct ‘affected choice of expression in a manner which wasn’t enabled by the legislative authority.'
In addition, it is undeniable that Australia is a republic in which lively communal dialogue, even on sensitive subjects, is broadly tolerated. However, there have been several cases where policies have been passed that impose limits on free expression in respects that better legal security should have avoided. In those cases, a fundamental right to free expression may have served to preserve the right by affecting how a statute was written, how it was discussed in Parliament, and by enabling courts following passage to apply the constitution to be more compatible with free expression, or even to dismiss the case. These procedures are usually outlined in bills of rights and civil rights legislation. Section 15 of the Charter of Human Rights and Obligations Act, for example, quotes that "everyone has the right to speak freely." The executive takes this right into account when developing policies and writing legislation.
IV POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS
Australians recognize that freedom of expression is one of the pillars upon which their democracy is founded. Nonetheless, unlike in other countries, no measures have been made to provide appropriate legal safeguards for free expression. This needs to improve. This could arise with the addition of a new clause of the Constitution, equivalent to that present in other countries. Such a reform will have to be approved by a vote of the Australian people. This will be a daunting obstacle. Australia's legislative record illustrates, that with just 8 of the 44 measures have never been approved since 1977. It would bring a formidable problem.
On the other hand, enforcement may be given by a federal ruling, as it still is for certain other protections, like the Racial Discrimination Act or the Civil Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994. (Cth). Such a statute will take precedence over contradictory state laws under Section 109 of the Constitution. It may, however, be abolished, revised, or revoked by the Federal Parliament, leaving it susceptible to applying appropriate federal political considerations. In this case, ensuring free expression will be a worthy move forward. Neither, though, it is the most suitable solution. It seems beneficial to preserve the liberty of expression as a section of a wider system of human rights protection.
It will represent the circumstance that free expression is an essential right, as one of many. Some liberties, like the right to associate and travel, need legal security as well. In general, freedom of expression occurs in Australia and to the degree that it is not repealed by parliaments. Too much, rhetorical emphasis is placed on free expression, but this is not demonstrated in its legal rights. Therefore, it is not necessary to make any changes to the constitution so as to have the right included explicitly. The freedom of expression in Australia exists but not in the constitution.
V CONCLUSION
In conclusion, some liberties, such as the right to interact and movement, need legal defense as well. It is difficult to protect the freedom of expression while most similar rights are not. In addition, sole guard for freedom of expression can create issues where one right must be balanced against others, like the freedom of expression versus a person's confidentiality. Giving broad legal security to only one right can shift the balance in one direction, resulting in an effect that is contradictory with the relative value of the rights. A safer way to safeguard free expression is to collect all rights and incorporate them in a human rights statute or national bill of rights. Therefore, Australia should not rectify their constitution to include the rights of freedom of speech.
