Lecture 12 was a short, reflective lecture in which Dr Redman wrapped up JOUR1111 for the Semester. In light of this lecture and as JOUR1111 comes to an end, I feel compelled to write one final post (or is it ...).
I have thoroughly enjoyed this course. Not only has it opened my eyes up to the world of Blogging but more importantly it has provided me with much insight into the fields of journalism and communication. Thanks to this course I am now able to distinguish between public media and private media, I now have an appreciation of the ethics of journalism and also the role of investigative journalism within society - and that is but a small taste of all that I have learnt. In completing pieces of assessment such as the Factual Story, I have come to realise that Journalism isn't as disciplined and dry as I previously had assumed but rather a creative and evolving field of study. JOUR1111 has shown me the power of journalism within our society - indeed some journalists have truly been able to change the world with their written word! As I hope you can tell, I have utterly enjoyed creating my blog and posting about what I have learnt in lectures as well as things that interest me. I plan to continue my blog.
Yes, it may be goodbye for now but not for long my friends. Very soon I will be back again blogging about stories that interest me in the news, art exhibitions that grace Brisbane with their presence and great adventures I get up to with my friends. As Charles Dickens noted, "the pain of parting is nothing to the joy of meeting again."
So, goodbye for now but certainly not forever!
Monday, 5 November 2012
Friday, 2 November 2012
The Google Defamation Case
Recently an Australian man has won a landmark defamation case against Google for the tort of defamation. Michael Trkulja brought a case against Google for search results that linked him to underworld criminals. Essentially, the reason Google was held liable was because it knew about the images and had been asked by Trkulja's lawyer to remove them but had not done so. As such Google's knowledge of the defamatory material meant that they were unable to utilise the absolute defence of innocent dissemination.
Click here to read more about the case.
I find this case and all the media coverage surrounding it very interesting because I have only recently learnt about the tort of defamation in a law course I am currently undertaking. I find it so exciting (as geeky as that sounds) to see all the things I have learnt and read in textbooks actually being applied!
It is interesting also to consider the implication this case will have for defamation cases in Australia and potentially in other countries around the world. Simon Rigby, a partner at Holman Webb lawyers who has specialised in defamation law, opines that the "implication for the future is that companies can't carry material on the internet with impunity" ... "What this means for the likes of Google and Yahoo is that when they get a takedown notice they have to respond to it or face the consequences."
In similar cases in the United Kingdom it was ruled that search engines are purely mechanical devices and are not responsible for the material published. I do not, however, think this current case departs radically or unjustifiably from this notion. If Google had not been specifically informed about the material and asked to remove it then they would not have been held responsible for the material published.
In deciding this case, the court has evidently weighed up the right to freedom of speech against the right to preserving one's reputation and standing within the community. In these circumstances, the latter was held to be of more importance.
Click here to read more about the case.
I find this case and all the media coverage surrounding it very interesting because I have only recently learnt about the tort of defamation in a law course I am currently undertaking. I find it so exciting (as geeky as that sounds) to see all the things I have learnt and read in textbooks actually being applied!
It is interesting also to consider the implication this case will have for defamation cases in Australia and potentially in other countries around the world. Simon Rigby, a partner at Holman Webb lawyers who has specialised in defamation law, opines that the "implication for the future is that companies can't carry material on the internet with impunity" ... "What this means for the likes of Google and Yahoo is that when they get a takedown notice they have to respond to it or face the consequences."
In similar cases in the United Kingdom it was ruled that search engines are purely mechanical devices and are not responsible for the material published. I do not, however, think this current case departs radically or unjustifiably from this notion. If Google had not been specifically informed about the material and asked to remove it then they would not have been held responsible for the material published.
In deciding this case, the court has evidently weighed up the right to freedom of speech against the right to preserving one's reputation and standing within the community. In these circumstances, the latter was held to be of more importance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)