15 May 2008
COMSLAW LAW WEEK EVENT
Ben Strong, ComsLaw's Legal Officer ran a community outreach seminar as part of the Victoria Law Foundation's Law Week for 2008. The seminar was held at Victoria Law School and covered some of the legal issues community members come against when using social network sites like YouTube, Facebook and My Space.
10 April 2008
COMSLAW SCORES A VICTORIAN LEGAL SERVICES BOARD GRANT
The Communications Law Centre has just been awarded one of the first ever grants from the new Legal Services Board Grants Program in Victoria.
This grant means we can now run an 11 month media law training program for volunteer community radio broadcasters across Victoria. ComsLaw will deliver training sessions in 7 metropolitan and regional locations. A plain English broadcaster reference manual will also be produced.
Community radio broadcasters play an important role for Victorians, servicing the needs of many community members for whom access to mainstream broadcast media is not the best option. This important sector of our community also deserves support for their work. The ComsLaw training program will provide much needed media law training to support their continued viability.
December 2006
CLC LAUNCHES FAIRTEL CAMPAIGN
The Communications Law Centre's public education and awareness campaign on consumers’ rights and benefits when choosing mobile, internet and fixed-line telephone services was launched by Louise Sylvan, Deputy Chair, ACCC on 14 December 2006. Media Release>>>
FairTel website>>>
GOVERNMENT’S MEDIA REFORM PACKAGE WILL INCREASE MEDIA CONCENTRATION
On Melbourne, 14 July 2006, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, released the government’s media reform package. Dr Tim Dwyer, co-author of the Communication Law Centre’s report “Content, Consolidation and Clout: How will Regional Australia be affected by Changes to Media Ownership?”, is dismayed by the package.
“The current proposals will not improve diversity in the media, given that ownership of Australian media is already regarded as one of the most concentrated among comparable developed democratic countries,” says Dr Dwyer.
“The ‘minimum voices test’ will allow further consolidation of our traditional media. So, in a metropolitan market like Sydney or Melbourne, there could be a 50 per cent reduction in media players.”
“The proposed changes could encourage a merger between ... See Full Media Release >>>
REGIONAL AUSTRALIA LET DOWN BY LOCAL MEDIA, COONAN OWNERSHIP TEST LIKELY TO MAKE THINGS WORSE
New research released on 7 April 2006 by the Communications Law Centre shows that regional centres have very few sources of local news and in many locations residents are angry at the poor quality and lack of coverage of major events.
Many people felt strongly that the local newspaper should be a linchpin of local communities, but too often neglects that role. Some residents felt that their local paper would be incapable of exposing corruption in local politics. In Toowoomba, residents pointed to the need to supplement local media with state or national media and cited the poor coverage of Toowoomba’s proposed water recycling plant. “We actually know more about Sydney’s desalination plant,” commented one participant in the study.
The CLC conducted research in four regional locations in mid-2005 (Wollongong, Townsville, Launceston and Toowoomba). The report, titled Content, Consolidation and Clout: How will regional media be affected by media ownership changes?, was written by Tim Dwyer, Derek Wilding, Helen Wilson and Simon Curtis. The results of the research are used to assess proposed four-to-a-market test to guard against further consolidation if the cross-media rules are removed. For further information about this research project including the full media release and how to order a copy of the report see www.comslaw.org.au/ccc.
MEDIA OWNERSHIP LAWS RELAXED BUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL INCREASED
On Tuesday, the Federal Government issued Meeting the Digital Challenge, its discussion paper on media reform options. While the Communications Law Centre (CLC) welcomes media reform and sees merit in proposals like the expansion of multi-channelling services for the ABC and SBS, we have grave concerns about many of the ideas outlined in the paper.
Overall, the flavour of the discussion paper is one of growing new services, economies of scale, and meeting the challenges of new markets. But at what cost? The CLC believes that, media independence, local content and diversity will be the ultimate losers.
The CLC is particularly concerned about the proposals that ... See Full Media Release >>>
MEDIA OWNERSHIP: How will regional Australia be affected by media ownership changes?
The Communications Law Centre is finalising a new report on the affects of media ownership changes in regional Australia. The report is titled Content, Consolidation and Clout: How will regional Australia be affected by media ownership changes?.
The report is the result of a 12 month research project that investigated the role of the media in four regional areas (Wollongong, Launceston, Townsville and Toowoomba) and assessed the likely impact in these areas of the removal of the cross-media rules. Researchers travelled to these four locations to interview local residents. They also used information on likely targets for media mergers to predict the effects in these and other areas of mergers between the major regional media companies.
The final report provides a context for these findings by reviewing the recent history of media ownership regulation in Australia, as well as attempts to ensure an adequate level of localism in regional media. A brief review of regulation in the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand provides additional background for assessing the Australian environment.
It is expected that the report will be released in early April 2006.
For further information, please contact Dr. Tim Dwyer on 0408 033 317 or at t.dwyer@uws.edu.au.
Disability and Unfair Practices With Telecommunications Contracts
In March 2006, the Communications Law Centre (CLC) at Victoria University released Not So Special: Telecommunications Contracts, Disability and Unfair Practices, a report which examines disputes between telecommunications providers and people with “judgment-related” disabilities in Victoria. Judgment-related disabilities can include intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, mental illness and dementia. For further information about this project and how to order a copy of the report see www.comslaw.org.au/NotSoSpecial.
News Media & the Law Conference
Many thanks to everyone who helped make the CLC's 'News Media and the Law' Conference such a roaring success. We would especially like to thank our speakers, whose generous gifts of time and expertise helped us craft a fascinating and engaging series of talks.
There were countless highlights, but many guests particularly enjoyed Robert Manne's meticulous deconstruction of News Limited's Iraq war coverage, Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan and Crikey.com.au co-owner Eric Beecher's feisty stand-off over the future of the newspaper, John Silvester's stories of legal actions he avoided because the plaintiff was conveniently shot, and Michael McKinnon's spirited tutorial in FOI legislation.
Our thanks also to our co-hosts, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Australian Press Council, and to Victoria University for housing the conference.
Disability and unfair practices with telecommunications contracts
The CLC's Melbourne-based policy researcher, Dr Chris Atmore, recently presented a work-in-progress report to Telstra's Disability Forum, which involves a wide range of community organisations as well as Telstra consultants. The presentation outlined the CLC's Victorian project on situations where people who have a disability which may affect their judgment enter into a telecommunications contract and then experience disadvantage related to their disability. These situations may involve someone with an intellectual disability, mental illness, acquired brain injury, dementia, or illness- or injury- related confusion.
The project is funded by the Reichstein Foundation and aims to document the kinds of problems faced by these consumers, leading to recommendations for more just outcomes. The results so far suggest that most disadvantage involves mobile or landline telephone contracts, and that while some legal change may be desirable, social policy improvements will also be necessary, such as encouraging telecommunications companies to adopt more appropriate practices.
For example, some people enter a contract when legally they do not have the capacity to understand what they are signing. If this can later be proved (eg by a medical certificate) and the company should have known this was the case, then in theory a consumer who has got into financial difficulty is not bound by the contract. However, in practice whether this is the outcome depends on whether the consumer has a strong and well-resourced advocate; especially as often it cannot be proved that the company had the necessary knowledge and so instead it comes down to negotiation between the company and the advocate.
Another common experience is where someone with a judgment-related disability is persuaded by a 'friend' or relative to 'go guarantor' for them for one or more mobile phones. There is actually no such thing as a guarantor in mobile phone contracts; rather, the person who signs is liable for any debt as the account holder. Commonly the person with a disability is then left with large bills.
While the disadvantages faced by people with judgement-related disabilities are often severe in this area, one of the key findings of the project is that many of the issues raised are simply more extreme instances of problems for all consumers in the telecommunications field. For example, many consumers do not understand some of the terms in their contract or find themselves in serious debt because mobile contracts offer a form of unregulated credit that would now be almost unheard of in the banking industry.
The Telstra presentation prompted much discussion and interest in the final report. The CLC hopes that the completed project will be a basis for industry, government and consumer discussion about how to achieve fairer telecommunications contractual practices for all in the community, but particularly for those suffering specific disadvantage.
When reasonable people can disagree
New research by the Communications Law Centre at the University of New South Wales casts doubt on the thinking behind the Federal Government's proposed new defamation laws.
Roy Baker, Project Director at the CLC, says the problem arises over the concept of 'reasonableness', which is central to some of the most controversial parts of the proposed new laws.
The research shows how a large proportion of Australians ' about one-third' cannot accept as 'reasonable' a point of view that is contrary to their own.
If the proposed new defamation laws were adopted, this could lead to some bizarre outcomes.
Under the new law, only 'reasonable' opinions would be protected.
Is it a 'reasonable' opinion to say, for example, that it is acceptable for a woman to have sex before marriage, or for a man to be homosexual?
These are issues on which the community holds differing views. Which views would and would not be protected by the law as ?reasonable??
Roy Baker says the Federal Government's proposals are particularly worrying in view of the CLC's research findings.
'The Attorney-General wants to water down the existing defences to defamation. If you are sued for giving your opinion, he wants you to prove it's an opinion a reasonable person could hold. The difficulty comes in deciding what is reasonable. It's such a subjective question.'
The CLC asked 3,000 Australians whether they would think less of someone if, for example, they were gay or had an affair. People were then asked if they could think of as reasonable someone who has a different point of view on the issue.
'What our research suggests is that if the law protects only those opinions it considers reasonable, this will silence debate on many issues that matter to people', says Roy Baker. 'Take abortion, for instance. We found about one in five people unable to consider reasonable someone who disapproves of doctors who conduct lawful terminations.
'Imagine what that would mean for pro-lifers who criticise staff at an abortion clinic. If they had to prove to a court that their opinion is one a reasonable person could hold, a lot would hang on the personal views of the judge or jury. Where society is split on an issue, defamation trials would become a lottery.
'If you are sued for defamation, you generally have to prove your facts are true. But when it comes to expressing an opinion based on true facts, normally it is enough just to be honest about what you think.'
Professor Philip Bell, Head of the School of Media and Communications, UNSW, said: 'We believe the current law adequately protects reputation against strong opinions. Courts should not decide what opinions are reasonable. Free speech means letting people express their views.'
A copy of the CLC's submission (submitted today, 3 May) to the Commonwealth Attorney-General in response to his proposals for national defamation laws can be found below.
For further details contact Roy Baker, Project Director, National Defamation Research Project, (02) 9385 7379, rbaker@comslaw.org.au, or Professor Philip Bell, Head of the School of Media and Communications, UNSW, (02) 9385 6811 p.bell@unsw.edu.au.
Commercial Radio - Cash for Comment, Round 2
Following reports on Media Watch in October 2002 concerning sponsorship and disclosures in commercial radio, the Communications Law Centre wrote to the Australian Broadcasting Authority to lodge a complaint under the Broadcasting Services Act against Radio 2GB (concerning Alan Jones) and Radio 2UE (concerning John Laws).
The ABA announced investigations into these matters in November 2002. In November 2003 the ABA delivered its report, Investigation into Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd - Sponsorship of Mr John Laws by Telstra Corporation Ltd and NRMA Insurance Ltd. The ABA found that arising from the conduct of John Laws, the licensee of 2UE had breached the Commercial Radio Disclosure Standard along with a licence condition imposed on 2UE following the Commercial Radio Inquiry, plus provisions of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice.
The investigations were completed in April 2004 when the ABA delivered its final report on the commercial arrangements of Alan Jones and 2GB and specifically the sponsorship arrangements involving Telstra. (See Investigation relating to the sponsorship of the Alan Jones Program pursuant to an agreement between Telstra Corporation and Macquarie Radio Network Pty Ltd, April 2004).
The ABA found that in relation to the conduct of Alan Jones, there was no breach by the licensee of 2GB of the Commercial Radio Standards, the Broadcasting Services Act, or the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice. The ABA did indicate that there could be some improvements made to the Codes of Practice and that it would pursue this matter with Commercial Radio Australia.
In response to the final report, the Communications Law Centre wrote to the ABA on 08.04.04 requesting that the ABA give further consideration to improving the Commercial Radio Standards and that this matter be subject to public comment. The Communications Law Centre commented:
"In our view, the fact that Alan Jones and 2GB did not breach any of these provisions does not mean that their conduct was suitable conduct for a highly influential presenter and the licensee of a commercial radio broadcasting service. Instead, it reveals that the regulatory framework governing sponsorship deals in commercial radio is incomplete.
... The latest report on Alan Jones has effectively documented a strategic means of by-passing regulation of commercial agreements ... In our view the ABA needs to regulate these matters by way of mandatory industry Standards."
For a copy of the CLC response to the Australian Broadcasting Authority in relation to the report on Alan Jones, 2GB and Telstra, see the Attached Publications list below.
Media Watch program 19 April 2004
In the program broadcast on 19 April, Media Watch reported on a draft version of the ABA report on Alan Jones and 2GB and the agreement with Telstra (See the Media Watch report). The draft version is substantially different from the final report.
The draft report demonstrates a different, more forceful regulatory approach. It contains additional points of evidence and its findings are strikingly different from those contained in the final report. In the draft report 2GB is found to have breached one of the Commercial Radio Standards as well as two sections of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice. In the final report, the ABA finds no breach on the part of 2GB.
Media Watch provided a copy of the leaked report to the Communications Law Centre for comment. We concluded:
... the intention to vigorously uphold the spirit of the Commercial Radio Standards, the Broadcasting Services Act, and the Codes of Practice was tempered - indeed, it was abandoned - by the time of the final report. In December 2003 the ABA had produced a strong public interest finding in the John Laws case - the Authority found that Laws' conduct had led to breaches by 2UE of the Commercial Radio Disclosure Standard, the 2UE licence condition governing disclosures, and the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice. This spirit of enforcement seems to have evaporated by the time of the Jones report in April.
... It is a reasonable conclusion that in the case of Alan Jones and Macquarie Radio Network the Australian Broadcasting Authority was overly timid in its approach to compliance and enforcement of the existing regulations. Furthermore, the Authority's narrow focus served as an obstacle in its consideration of new provisions that would protect the public interest.
For a copy of the CLC analysis of the differences between the two reports, see the Attached Publications list below.
For further information, see Journalism and Media Ethics.
CLC Writes to the Minister 28.04.04
On Monday 26 April Media Watch reported on draft documents concerning the Telstra-MRN agreement. These documents appear to confirm that although the agreement was executed between Telstra and MRN, it was designed to secure the personal involvement of Alan Jones.
Media Watch also revealed that in 1999 Professor Flint wrote a letter to Alan Jones providing a warm endorsement of him. Questions have been raised about the appropriateness of this letter.
The Telstra documents and the letter from Professor Flint are available on the Media Watch website.
On 28.04.04 the CLC wrote to the ABA again requesting a review of the Standards and also requesting a review of the decision in this case.
We also wrote to the Minister requesting that he exercise his powers under the Broadcasting Services Act to direct the ABA to look into the matter of commercial agreements between sponsors and licensees.
Copies of these letters can be found in Attached Publications below.
Events
Last event Digital Disability: A Sydney Seminar & Book Launch on Disability + New Media
Oz NetLaw
Please see www.oznetlaw.net/whatsnew.asp for an update on Oz NetLaw news.
Other CLC Activities
Please see Training Presentations, Events, Current CLC Projects and Communications Update for information on other CLC activities.
Publications