Do The Racial Vilification Laws Contained In Part IIA Of The Racial - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

TOPIC
Do the racial vilification laws contained in Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) prevent journalists and the media from reporting or commenting on public interest issues concerning race?
Please note you need to refer to authoritative materials (cases and peer-reviewed journal articles) to support the arguments in your assignment.
Preface to the Fourth Edition 
Since the publication of the first edition in 1998, the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (‘AGLC’) remains the authoritative legal citation guide within Australia and is widely used by practitioners, law students and academics alike. The fourth edition marks the 20th anniversary of the AGLC and continues the original aim of providing clear, concise and comprehensive rules for citation whilst ensuring that it remains accessible to all readers. 
The fourth edition continues the collaboration between the Melbourne University Law Review Association (‘Review’) and the Melbourne Journal of International Law (‘Journal’) and refines the enduring foundations laid down by the previous editions of the AGLC. The fourth edition also builds upon the existing rules to ensure the ongoing relevance of the AGLC in today’s everchanging legal landscape. 
Acknowledgments Members of the Review and the Journal have been involved in production of this edition of the AGLC over the last several years. Work on the fourth edition of the AGLC was overseen by the General Editors: Justin Browne, Rajesh Gounder, Peter Henley, Marcus Roberts and Lachlan Sievert. Much of the work was done by the AGLC4 Committee, comprised of Anna Bohacova, Eliah Castiello, Kye-Ren Cheong, Danielle El Hajj, Matthew Harper, Jamin Li, Michael McArdle, Daniel O’Neil, Kathleen Phelan, Alan de Rochefort-Reynolds, Rachel Walters and Daniel Wright. The cover was designed by Eliah Castiello. 
We thank all past and present Members of the Review and the Journal who participated in proofreading the fourth edition of the AGLC: Justin Joonhyuk Chang, Betty Yee En Choi, Kevin Cui, Nick Felstead, Jane Hannah, Jake Herd, Angad Keith, Ken Kiat, Youngkwang ‘Nolan’ Lee, Jahangir Mahmood, Anna Sartori, Maddie Smith, Phapit Triratpan, April Whitehead, Belinda Yee and Jennifer Zheng. We would also like to thank Sam Crock and Sarah Waring. We thank especially Stuart Dixon for his comprehensive proofreading of the fourth edition. 
Invaluable assistance was provided by the former Editors of the Review and the Journal: Holly Cao, Kara Connolly, Jordonne Colley, Chenez Dyer Bray, Monique MacRitchie, James Nunez, Mimi Oorloff, George Priestley, Stephen Polesel, Cal Samson, Phoebe St John, Emily Rothfield, Anna Saunders, Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore and Thomas Wu. We would like to thank Alexander Di Stefano and Jack North for their contribution to the Review and their tireless efforts, along with their team, in developing AGLC Online. 
x We thank Andrew Christie, Robin Gardner, Fiona MacDowell, Chantal Morton, Trung Quach and Kirsty Wilson for their insight and assistance with the production of the fourth edition. 
Working on the fourth edition was made markedly easier by the enduring framework built by the past three editions of the AGLC. We would like to acknowledge all those who have worked on the previous editions, especially the General Editor of the first edition, Andrew D Mitchell, the General Editors of the second edition, Lucy Kirwan and Jeremy Masters, and the General Editors of the third edition, Sara Dehm and David Heaton. 
We wish to acknowledge Melbourne Law School’s continuing support of the Review, the Journal, and of the AGLC. We would like to thank the Review’s Faculty Advisors, Ian Malkin, Jenny Morgan and Dale Smith, and the Journal’s Faculty Advisors, Andrew D Mitchell, Bruce ‘Ossie’ Oswald, Jacqueline Peel and John Tobin, for their continued support and guidance over the years. 
Finally, we are grateful for the extensive feedback provided by students, practitioners, academics, judges, court officers and staff, law school administrators, law librarians, law journal editors and others who have supported the AGLC. It is heartening to see the degree of commitment and investment that AGLC users have for its continued improvement. Such feedback is highly valued and ensures we consider many different perspectives when making changes. We look forward to receiving feedback on possible improvements for the next edition. 
AGLC4 Committee Melbourne July 2018 
How to Use This Guide 
The cardinal principles in legal citation — indeed all citation — are clarity and consistency. Citations should contain the information that a reader will need to locate sources quickly and easily. If your citations are clear and concise, your readers will appreciate it. 
The rules in the AGLC have been drafted with these cardinal principles in mind. The core rules have mostly not changed since the first edition of the AGLC was published in 1998. Where changes have been made, it has always been in pursuit of greater clarity and consistency. 
Suggested Approach to Using the AGLC If you are a first-time user of the AGLC, we recommend that you first read through the General Rules (chapter 1) and then skim the chapters relating to sources that you are likely to want to cite on a regular basis. In the case of Australian law students, chapter 2 (Cases) and chapter 3 (Legislative Materials) will be essential. Thereafter, when you wish to cite a particular source, you can use either the contents or the index to find the applicable rule. 
Sources Not Included in the AGLC If you wish to cite a source for which provision is not made in the AGLC, you should first reflect on the cardinal principles: clarity and consistency. It may be helpful to analogise with existing rules. However, there is often no single correct way to cite a source and it will be a matter of judgment as to which rule to adhere to. As long as you are clear and consistent, you cannot go wrong. 
The best way to cite a source may also vary depending on the audience. For example, if you are citing a legal source from a jurisdiction not covered in the AGLC, it may be preferable to cite it like an analogous Australian source when you are writing for an Australian audience, but it may be preferable to cite it like it is cited in the foreign jurisdiction when you are writing for an audience familiar with the jurisdiction. 
Subsequent References One of the more significant changes contained in this edition of the AGLC concerns subsequent references. Specifically, the AGLC now provides for the use of cross- references in citations of all sources, including cases, legislation and treaties. 
The principle guiding this change is consistency. In academic writing, readers will wish to refer back to cases, legislation and treaties that have been previously cited as frequently as they will wish to refer back to journal articles and books. In this context, it makes sense to adopt a uniform rule for subsequent references. 
xii A further principle guiding the change was clarity. The previous edition of the AGLC provided for the use of short titles, but not cross-references, when citing legislation. A reader might then come across a reference to ‘JR Act’, and, if she had not read every footnote and was not familiar with the field, she might struggle to decipher the reference. The use of cross-references alleviates this issue. 
However, it is accepted that in some contexts, the interest in being able to instantly identify the complete reference for a case outweighs the interests of consistency and concision. For example, it is likely that, for good reason, law reports and legal advices will continue to use complete citations of cases. 
Bearing in mind that writers’ purposes and readers’ circumstances will differ, the new rule regarding subsequent references is intended to be facultative rather than mandatory. 
Secondary Sources This chapter has undergone some significant changes. A new chapter outlining the general rules for secondary sources has been added (chapter 4). Much of this information was contained in specific rules in the past edition. The consolidation into a single chapter provides greater clarity for specific elements of secondary sources, irrespective of the rule being applied. 
Multiple new rules have been added to allow citation of materials such as intellectual property materials, podcasts and social media posts. As the sources we draw upon expand, so too must the citation rules. 
Existing rules have also undergone changes. Multiple secondary sources have been consolidated into general rules that can be applied to multiple different source types. This allows consistency in how similar materials are cited. The rules are also easier to navigate. 
 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at onlineassignmentbank. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.