Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
GPTKB entity
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:citedBy |
(1997) 189 CLR 520
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:High_Court_of_Australia
limited scope of defamation for public figures reaffirmed freedom of expression |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
1997
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| gptkbp:impact |
media reporting standards
journalistic_practices |
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation
Lange |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Callinan
gptkb:Justice_Kirby gptkb:Justice_Hayne gptkb:Justice_McHugh Justice Gummow |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
defamation
public interest defense truth as a defense |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
ABC's_legal_team
Lange's_legal_team |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
defined public figure status
influenced legislative changes in defamation law clarified defamation defenses addressed accountability of public figures affected public discourse on defamation analyzed role of courts in media regulation considered impact of technology on media law contributed to legal scholarship on defamation debated limits of journalistic privilege discussed ethical journalism practices examined intersection of law and public opinion examined role of media in democracy explored implications for investigative journalism highlighted need for legal reform in defamation influenced subsequent defamation cases informed media liability standards raised questions about media bias reflected societal values on free speech highlighted balance between free speech and reputation shaped_Australian_media_law |
| gptkbp:outcome |
decision_in_favor_of_Lange
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
established standards for public figures
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Theophanous_v_Herald_&_Weekly_Times_Ltd
Channel_Nine_v_Duffy McManus_v_Scott-Charlton |
| gptkbp:significance |
freedom of speech
defamation_law_in_Australia |