Talk:Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Lange

The case was one of the earliest in a series of cases in which the High Court found implied rights in the Constitution. This trend reached a high-point in Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, which found that the implied right to freedom of political communication could be used as a defence in a defamation action. Although that is no longer the case, the limited right to freedom of communication remains.

Are you sure this is strictly correct? since Lange, you are still allowed a defence of qualified privilege in a defamation action with regard to political matters, even if it is a publication to the world at large. At least, that is my understanding of Lange.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.87.32 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 September 2005.