The Provisions of Freedom of Information Act and Copyright Law - Article Example

1. Introduction I am writing an article on Australian Senator Archer rumoured to being involved in corrupt practices. The article will be published in a widely read local magazine with at least a picture of the Senator meeting with local investors in his home and another picture showing him watching representatives of these investors counting the money in front of him and handed it to him afterwards. These pictures were taken discreetly within the premises of the residence of the Senator. Subsequent research into the life and activities of Senator Archer revealed that he had received money from various sources, mostly from businessmen who are in the industry highly regulated by the government and those who are lobbying for approvals of laws that could either hamper or advance their business interests such as issues on health care legislation. In his 10 years service in the government of Australia, the Senator has been very controversial in his statements usually going against public clamour. For example, he was pushing for the passage of Euthanasia Bill allowing doctors or relatives of patients to use drugs to end the lives of their patients and relatives terminally ill. Afterwards, he was seen meeting with representatives of drug companies manufacturing the Euthanasia drug. Corruption on the incident was not proven. However, subsequent involvement of the Senator on controversial issues became rampant which were usually followed by report of him meeting discreetly with lobbyists for the legislations he is pushing for. Lifestyle check showed that he has lavished properties and stock ownership from companies whose interests he has advance by supporting legislations favouring their products or businesses. Also, investigation of funds under his committee in the Senate has been found to be inappropriately spent for his personal consumption such as purchase of a vehicle which is not being used for the Senator’s transportation but that of other member of his family. Other inappropriate disbursements of these funds were tracked down towards a purchase of materials used for the renovation of the Senator’s yacht. In the last election, he was rumoured to have quashed his opponent by committing fraud in the counting of ballots believed to be financed by his businessmen cohorts. The Senator has been involved in so many controversies but no facts have been presented in public that could pin him down with corruption charges initiated by the public itself. Writing this article and publishing it is really an expose’ that could dent the Senator’s political image permanently. The sensitivity of this publication could result to the Senator’s camp lashing out at the publisher of the write up. As a desktop publisher I research on the legal issues that can be used for and against me in this particular publication. Below is the result of my intensive research related to the issue that I am writing on. 2. Legal Issues for Consideration 2.1 Defamation In writing the article and publishing it, the Senator can sue for defamation in virtue of the Defamation Act of 2005 which assumes everyone has a good character until proven otherwise (Legal Services Commission of South Australia). The Senator can wisely raise the issue of the article as defaming his character and reputation particularly since his integrity is at stake being a political figure. The distinction between slander and libel is not recognized anymore in Australian Courts in terms of suing for defamation (Defamation Act of 2005, par. 7). In writing about the corrupt practices of Senator Archer, the Senate as a government body is forbidden by law to sue for defamation of the Senate in lieu with those accusations against one of its members (Legal Services Commission of South Australia). However, the law allows any elected official such as Senator Archer to sue for defamation when he believed his reputation is at stake (Legal Services Commission of South Australia). Thus, I have to be ready just in case the Senator will file a case of defamation with special damage (Law Handbook) against me or our publication in publishing such article and photo about his corrupt practices. However, writers and publishers can raise a defence against defamation when they can prove that what they wrote is true and correct (Defamation Act of 2005, Section 31); hence when the article will label Senator Archer as corrupt and accepting bribes from several sources can be proven by the photos of him accepting money from a source. 2.2 Breach of privacy Senator Archer can file a complaint against me and our publication for breaching his privacy as an individual citizen citing the provision of the Privacy Act of 1988 (Attorney General’s Department, 2007) if ever the article and incriminating photos about him is published in the magazine. He can file complaints against us for breaching Information Privacy Principle or IPP and National Privacy Principle or NPP. However, a media organization is one of the three groups that inherently collect personal information of people as part of the nature of its work (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2008). It is exempted from breaching the provisions of the Privacy Code when it carry out the presentation of personal information of an individual, which in this case is Senator Archer, “in the course of journalism” (Privacy Act, Section 7B, par. 4.a, 1988, p. 36). Also, Principle 11 of the IPP allows disclosure of personal information for the “purpose of the protection of the public revenue” (Privacy Act, IP Principle 11, par. 2, 1988, p. 58). The above information showed that there is a balance in the protection of the rights to privacy of an individual such as Senator Archer and the rights to disclosure of an organisation such as desktop publisher like us. The balance lies in the crucial impact of the information provided by the publisher to the protection of the public particularly against corruption of its elected officials. In fact, Section 3A of the Privacy Act (1988, p. 2) specifically mention the application of the provision of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code in all offences committed against the Privacy Act. Personal interpretation of this provision of applying Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code also applies to any disclosure of any acts that can be criminal in nature particularly if it put at risk the credibility of the a branch of the Government of Australia. Specifically, Senator Archer can reason out that a criminal act is being committed against him in the form of fault elements and intention (Section 5.1 & 5.2, Criminal Code of 1995, Amended 2008, p. 8). However, Chapter 7 of the Code incorporates the “Proper Administration of Government” (Section 133.1, p. 253) particularly on fraudulent conducts of government officials (Part 7.3, p. 253) such as getting advantage of the finances of the Commonwealth to its and its citizen’s disadvantage. In particular, Section 142.1 outlines the criminal offence for a public official to receive benefits out of corrupting activities (p. 276). 2.3 Freedom of information Gathering information about Senator Archer’s committee funds and how it is being spend is a right that every Australian citizen, including desktop publishers, is entitled to as provided by Section 2 of the Freedom of Information Act (par. 1a, 1989). Thus, there is no crime committed for publishing information about the amount of funds handled by the Senator, where it is spent and analysing the appropriateness of such spending. This information made accessible by the Government of Australia to its citizens can help in the analysis of how the Senator used such public funds and show any misuse and allocation of these funds for personal use of the Senator is part of the journalism work of our publication which is duly provided in the Privacy Act (1988). However, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act should not be abused by media by concocting baseless stories about political figures just to create news that would interests the public about their organisation. 2.4 Copyright law The Copyright Act of 1968 which was amended in 2008 stipulates the protection of the works of publishers such as photos and articles (Section 10, p. 6). Published editions such as our magazine articles fall under the topic aside from the works category (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2004). Thus, the story published our magazine along with the photographs posted is the exclusive right of our publication and must not be copied or reproduced without our consent. It is very important that our expose and analysis of the corrupt activities of Senator Archer becomes our by line in the publishing world. This is a story that is inherently ours and must not be easily copied without any reference to us or without seeking our consent. Publishing companies and even individuals must be conscious of copyright issues particularly if the topic being discussed is very salient to the public. Future work would refer to the expose we have on Senator Archer. It would be unfair if our publication will not be referenced by future researchers who would cite it in their writings. Writing is part of the artistic work defined by the Copyright Act as qualified for copyright protection. Also, it is not easy writing down your analysis of salient issues such as the corrupt practices of Senator Archer. Thus, as a publisher and writer I need to put a claim to my work and that of our magazine for our own protection in the competitive industry of publication. 3. Conclusion Publishing a story and analysis of actions of a political figure such as Senator Archer is a big responsibility for a publisher. It encompasses social, moral and political responsibility both towards the Commonwealth and the people of Australia. Though, the story would be of great interests both for the government and the Australians, there is a need for publishers like me to be conscious of the legal risks that I will face by publishing the truth. Being aware of the legal issues does not mean that publishers should be afraid of doing what their jobs dictate them to do. Instead, it should guide us to know what areas to dwell on in our story line that will be within the legal framework of the law. In particular, publishers must avoid breaching the provisions of the Criminal Code, Privacy Act, and Defamation Act while carrying out their rights under the provisions of Freedom of Information Act and Copyright Law. These laws were not created to suppress publication of the truth or to prevent publishers from doing their jobs. It is best that publishers constantly refer to their legal advisers to ensure that their manner of presentation of the truth will not breach the provisions of the necessary laws. Reference List Legal Services Commission of South Australia (2008). Defamation. Retrieved 25 March 2009 from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch14.php Attorney General’s Department (2005). Defamation Act of 2005 No. 77. New South Wales. Attorney-General’s Department (2008). Privacy Act 1988. Cranberra Legal Services Commission of South Australia (2008). Privacy and Access to Information. Retrieved on 26 March 2009 from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch35.php Australasian Legal Information Institute (2008). Freedom of Information Act of 1989. Retrieved on 27 March 2009 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/foia1989222.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/act/consol_act/foia1989222.txt Attorney General’s Department (2008). Criminal Code Act of 1995. Canberra. Retrieved on 28 March 2009 from the website of Commonwealth of Australia Law: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/6B763C27084A65ABCA2574820023FEAD Attorney General’s Department (2008). Copyright Act of 1968. Canberra. Retrieved on 28 March 2009 from the website of Commonwealth of Australia Law: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/2E3EEB3B6191AB60CA2574FF0081BA02?OpenDocument Legal Services Commission of South Australia (2004). Copyright. Retrieved on 25 March 2009 from http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch09.php Read More