To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Decided12 October 1994
Citation(s)[1994] HCA  46, (1994) 182 CLR 104
Court membership
Judges sittingMason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh JJ

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd[1] is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to implied freedom of political communication that the High Court has inferred, rests in the Australian constitution.

Background

Andrew Theophanous had been an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives since 1980. In 1992, he was the chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Migration. The Herald and Weekly Times published an article by Bruce Ruxton, "Give Theophanous the shove", which stated that Theophanous "appears to want a bias shown towards Greeks as migrants". Theophanous sued the Herald & Weekly Times and Ruxton for defamation.[1]

Decision

The judgment held that there was an implied constitutional freedom to publish material discussing government and political matters as well as the way that members of the Parliament of Australia conducted their duties and their suitability for office.

Significance

Just three years later, with a change in the composition of the High Court,[2] the court unanimously reversed the opinion in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It held that no direct right to free speech could form a defence to defamation. Still, the case remains important in the development of the implied freedom.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA  46, (1994) 182 CLR 104.
  2. ^ Mason) CJ and Deane J had retired and Gummow J and Kirby J had been appointed.
  3. ^ Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA  25, (1997) 189 CLR 520.

Further reading

  • "Defamation and the Right to Political Communication". Parliament of New South Wales (Australia). Retrieved 22 August 2012.
  • Blacksheild, Tony; Williams, George (2010). Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (5th ed.). Sydney: Federation Press. p. 1272..


This page was last edited on 10 July 2019, at 08:14
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.