Abstract

Does press freedom justify criminal acts?

Article

The freedom of the press, so far as it is justified, is very important to democracy. That is a given, but it is limited, of course, by such as the law of defamation and industry self-imposed standards.

The right of the public to know is a deceptive generalised catch-cry, and anyone who uses it should automatically be suspected of deceit. In any case, it is often not a matter of democracy so much as having material which the media can distort in a sensationalist way in order to increase circulation.Would anyone suggest that the media, including of late, unfortunately, the ABC, would not do such a thing?

Another empty catchcry is "Freedom of Speech, which sounds serious but like many media productions is distortedto thepoint of misrepresentation.  It should more accurately be put as Freedom to commit crime at will. Further,there are other most important and justifiale clogs on freedom of speech, such as the criminalisation of treason, sedition, defamation and hate speech. A clog in the inteests of national security and the lives of serving troops accords comfortably with this list.

At best, this is at the conceited judgment of the offender who places his/her judgment above those who are responsible for making decisions, and are answerable for it.   At worst, it is a smoke-screen  to make excuses for deliberate crime by way of self-interest.

The current issue arising from police warrants to search media premises and recover evidence of criminal offences has been presented almost universally by the media as an infringement of the freedom of the press without justifiable foundation.  It is a self-serving pieceof propaganda.

The media has been flooded with mostly the cries of the self-interested, and when a rare neutral sensible person isgiven air-time and  tries to explain the realproblem, he/she is quickly diverted by a change of subject. One presenter was so bad as to describe the process of the issue of a warrant as a policemen signiing an affidavit and the magistrate/judge "rubber-stamping it".  This merely manifests the frailty of media standards, which is also a serious factor which must be taken into consideration on the issue. Does it support the proposition that the media is to have the right to break the law as it wishes?

Silently, by gross omission and a total failure to discuss the other side, it is implied that that the media are entitled to commit crimes in order to obtain material to publish. In principle, it would justify robbery and even violence in order to support 'the public's right to know'.

In a democracy, the rule of law is of the highest importance: otherwise there is chaos which is moved by the whim and self-interested judgment of those who would claim the right to break the law because they want to do so.

Those who in their subjective conscience and judgment choose to commit a crime as a matter of principle should be prepared to accept the consequences which the law, and society, imposes for that wrongdoing.  Police action, including searches, should reasonably be within the contemplation of any offender, and any complaint is a claim for uninhibited freedom without responsibility.  This is unacceptable. 

Moreover, the approach taken is an abuse of the very important principle of the freedom of the press.  Its invocation in an unworthy cause contaminates its value. The media generally, and particularly those in higher office who have presented a self-serving and biased commentary, and have failed to acknowledge the strong case contrary to their proposition, should be ashamed of themselves.

The extent of  the present abuse freely engaged in by the media in its present campaign may be measured by the extent to which itpresents anyneed for some qualification to itsimplied demand of complete absence ofrestraint, or pressentation ofthe many occasions of dangerous abuse of mediafreedom

There is not even any rarional discussion (or, as they would say, conversation).  For example, is there not room for debate as to whether itis in the national security interest to keep secret, at least for the time being, an allegation that certain and few Australian troops murdered some civilians in Afghanistan?  t woould be necessary to at least consider whether its release may incite defective extremeists to kill Australian civilians under the sacred mantras of 'Justice' and 'Self-defence' (in place of 'Press Freedom'and 'The Prople's Rightto Know').  Or to encourage defective 'patriotic' Australian to enter a mosque with guns and kill 50 unarmed Muslims on thebasis that itis really right - our soldiers do it.

There is a problem in a government's abuse of its powers by secreting information which should be available to the public, but that is a different issue.  It should be cured by proper means directed to preventing it.  But it is not the answer to allow self-intereted media practitioners to set up their own judgment as to whether they are entitled to commit crimes in order to further their f reputation or circulation under the mantra of 'the public's right to know'. Change the law as to government secrecy by all means, but after rational discussion (which the media call conversation). Otherwise, while the law is in force, it is not to be wantonly broken, or society and democracy will suffer.

In an unfortunate show of the irresponsibility of the media, which is the principal reason for reasonable inhibition of some press freedom, the media itself has engaged in a strong exercise of propaganda totally devoidof any reasonable or balanced discussion of the issues contrary to their catchcries.

Now they are trying to water down the defamation laws which would llow them greater freedom to defame ordinary citizens who havve no other form of redress than defamationactions. Perhaps they believ that there is a moral and social justification to make repeated accusations that persons wrongly caused the death ofa numbeerof people in floods throughengineering works, thogh the court would conclude that it was not true,  A carte blanche for irresponsible journalism is not freedom of the press, it is an invitation to indulge in abuse of the freedom.

The quality of the media and its reputation are so low that these dangers cannot be waved away in the discussion.  It is of little consequence for media persons to acknowledge that reporters had responsibilities when it is notorious that they do not observe it, or to offer solid means of curbing abuse. Recent blanket media propaganda predicates, without saying so, that they should not be constrained by the ordinary law which applies to everyone else.

In recent speeches the President of the Law Councilof Australia and the President of the Victorian Bar Association both spoke invery proper terms of the importance of Press Freedom.  Unfortunately, neither balanced their message with a discussion of the responsibilities of those to whom freedom is extended, and the the danger of its abuse by those with a conflict of interest, such as selling media.  Perhaps it wasa most suitable time todososince the addresses were given to the Press Club.

Such opportunities should not be missed, having regard to the grossly unbalanced presentation of  the issue ubiquitously thrugh the available media.