Tag Archives: free expression

Actions against media send international message

By MARK PEARSON

Just as Australia was regaining international respectability for its approach to media freedom, three recent events stand to undermine any progress.

The incidents were the arrest by Queensland police of a Sydney Morning Herald reporter and seizure of his computer, the elevation to ‘critical’ of the official alert level for journalists trying to access immigration detention centres, and the NSW Crime Commission serving subpoenas on two Fairfax journalists.

Each sends its own message of censorship and repression to the international community just when Australia’s reputation was being restored with the introduction of better freedom of information laws and federal shield laws for journalists and bloggers.

SMH deputy technology editor Ben Grubb was arrested after his article exposing Facebook’s privacy controls included material he had gained from an interview with a security expert who had told a conference how he had accessed photos of a rival’s partner without her permission.

It was reported by The Australian to be the first time a journalist had been arrested under an obscure provision of Queensland law related to ‘receiving tainted property’.

The chilling formality of the police interview with Grubb while he was under arrest is on the SMH website .

While there was no indication of police wrongdoing, the episode triggers recollections of darker times in the relationship between Queensland police and the media in the late 1980s which prompted the watershed Fitzgerald Inquiry into corruption in that state.

It also follows just two months after two other Fairfax journalists were caught in the middle of a dispute between two enforcement agencies in the neighbouring state of New South Wales.

The NSW Crime Commission, under investigation by the Police Integrity Commission, demanded source information from two Sydney Morning Herald journalists and their parent news group.

Reporters Linton Besser and Dylan Welch wrote articles critical of the Crime Commission and it ordered them to surrender their cellphones and SIM cards in a bid to discover their sources.

It also demanded that anyone within Fairfax reveal any communication – either directly or through intermediaries – with the Police Integrity Commission or any of its staff over the past year.

Refusal would have placed the journalists at risk of contempt charges, but the commission later withdrew the demands under pressure. The correspondence at the ABC Media Watch site makes fascinating reading.

Australia is also in the international spotlight for its border control policies and related human rights issues. That reputation was not improved when it was revealed on the ABC this week that the company handling the Immigration Department’s refugee detention facilities had upgraded to ‘critical’ the alert level for journalists trying to get access to the centres.

This followed a Sixty Minutes episode when reporters were refused access to an immigration facility.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison criticised the media policy and said it ranked journalists’ unauthorized access “…as critical as a bomb threat, a chemical weapon, a riot or even the tragic death of someone in a detention centre”.

Yet the new media clampdown will also invoke memories of Mr Morrison’s own party’s spin and cover-up of the so-called ‘children overboard’ affair a decade ago when they were in government, as outlined by a Senate inquiry.

Australia already lags behind most western democracies in its lack of any explicit right to free expression or a free media in its Constitution. These actions against journalists, combined with the government’s continued advocacy of a mandatory internet filtering scheme, send the message to the international community that Australian state and federal authorities do not place a high value on free expression.

They also undermine Australia’s diplomatic position when it attempts to influence the media policies of more repressive regimes.

* Mark Pearson is professor of journalism at Bond University and Australian correspondent for Reporters Without Borders. He tweets from @journlaw and blogs from journlaw.com

——–

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer! My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson 2011

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Union’s press freedom report covers key issues

By MARK PEARSON (@journlaw)

The Australian journalism union has released its annual review of press freedom, with thoughtful perspectives from journalists and media lawyers on the state of free expression in 2011.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has been producing these reports for the past seven years, and the archive is available here.

Human rights advocate and barrister Julian Burnside breaks the Wikileaks saga down into its component parts to distinguish between the leaking of classified government material and the publishing of such leaked material.

Freedom of information guru, FoI editor for the Seven network Michael McKinnon, assesses reformed laws at Commonwealth and State level to determine whether they have improved transparency. He gives examples showing the lengths to which bureaucrats will go to resist release of public documents.

Veteran political correspondent Laurie Oakes analyses new federal shield laws and Queensland whistleblower protection laws but warns against complacency in the new regime.

Founder of Crikey.com Stephen Mayne demonstrates that concentration of media ownership is alive and well by mapping the ‘cosy club of associated billionaires’ running the show in Australia.

ABC Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes takes up the prickly issue of racial commentary and assesses whether a complaint about columnist Andrew Bolt’s comments about indigenous leaders threatens free speech.

Canberra Times writer Markus Mannheim reviews the Rudd-Gillard governments’ attempts to improve transparency in the public service.

Sydney Morning Herald journalist and author David Marr revisits a bizarre decision by the broadcast regulator ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) about a television expose of a politician’s sexual preference.  He argues the Seven network’s story and the subsequent copout by the regulator add weight to the push for stronger privacy laws.

The MEAA has produced a useful annual resource for the media law researcher and press freedom advocate and it is heartening to see high calibre media and law commentators making such important contributions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

South Australia’s antiquated sex ID law

By MARK PEARSON

Media coverage of the arrest of a prominent South Australian politician on sex charges and its political fallout on April 22 made a mockery of that state’s outdated suppression of the names of people accused of sexual crimes.

It also highlighted the difficulties faced by the mainstream media attempting to comply with the law while their online competitors in social media and the blogosphere named and shamed the accused with gay abandon.

The state’s newspapers performed layout and design gymnastics as they attempted to tell their readers very different stories on different pages – one about the arrest of an anonymous politician on child pornography charges and another on the important matter of personnel changes in the South Australian parliament.

On Tuesday, May 3, South Australian Premier Mike Rann conceded the restrictions might be a little antiquated when he announced an independent review of the 35 year old law banning the identification of the accused in major sex crimes – or even coverage of preliminary proceedings – until after they have been committed for trial. (See http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2011/05/03/Child_sex_offenders_not_for_parly_-_Rann_608425.html )

South Australian and Queensland laws keep the accused’s identity secret until later in the criminal process. In South Australia, the identity restriction extends to a ban on any coverage of the preliminary proceedings of a major sexual offence until the accused person has been committed for trial or sentence (Evidence Act 1929, s. 71A). In Queensland, the preliminary proceedings can be reported, but the identity of the accused must remain secret until after they have been committed for trial (Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978, s. 7).

The laws differ from those in other Australian states and territories where only the identity of the victim is suppressed. There, the accused in a sexual crime can be identified unless their identity might lead to the identification of the victim or unless a judge or magistrate decides to suppress the identity on other public interest grounds.

These restrictions did not even work very well in earlier times. Queensland media had to suppress the name of former Opposition Leader Keith Wright when he faced sex charges in 1993, while competing outlets in other states were able to name him. It meant residents in the NSW border town of Tweed Heads could read about Wright and see his photo while just a minute’s drive away in Coolangatta Queenslanders could only read about ‘a politician’.

Today’s communications defy state borders and the postings of bloggers and social media users make a mockery of state-based laws to the disadvantage of traditional media. The result is that the identity of the arrested South Australian politician has become widely circulated on the Internet, but newspapers and broadcast media in that state have been forced to comply with an outdated law.

Journalists face a $10,000 fine if they identify the person and their companies can be fined up to $120,000, the same penalties they would face if they identified the victim.

When the accused person is a politician there is the added important public interest element in citizens’ rights to be fully informed on political matters. This must surely outweigh other considerations, particularly when most other jurisdictions allow the identification of accused in such circumstances.

The South Australian example demonstrates it is just a bad law when almost everyone knows the identity of this accused politician but the mainstream media is gagged from stating it. That is unhealthy for both justice and democracy.

Now that South Australia is making the first moves towards reform, Queensland legislators should follow suit so that state does not become the suppression laggard of Australian jurisdictions when the next Keith Wright comes along.

Further information: AdelaideNow http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/identity-secrecy-guards-possible-victims/story-e6frea83-1226043119942

ABC PM program http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3206817.htm

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized