politics of communication and regulation

Understanding of relevant material introduced in the subject Engagement with the politics of communication and regulation Quality of materials deployed in the simulation Contribution to a shared group position in the Mock Inquiry Further information: Student groups present at an in-class mock inquiry into the regulation of communication. The mock inquiry is seeking public responses on the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Australia (as outlined at Week 11 in this subject outline). In Week 7 each small group is assigned a role-pay for the mock inquiry, for instance as a community organisation, a think-tank or advocacy NGO, a government agency, or a corporate entity or association. The group establishes a shared position on the issue and produces a ten-minute presentation designed to influence the in-class inquiry, in any genre (powerpont including video, sound, etc). The group then submits a written submission in the Assessment Week. In terms of assessment, 20% is allocated to the group presentation; 20% to the group's written submission. More easy way to explain Assessment Task 3 - Mock Inquiry: Which I'm not sure if I am in the right track or not, but I think it won't be too wrong. ***Every single group, choose a Submission through the internet, that group members are all agree its' suitable to present for assessment 3. Which in Our Group the Submission We Picked is: https://zh.scribd.com/document/211584036/Online-Hate-Prevention-Institute-OHPI-Submission-on-Online-Safety-for-Children (Please do read through this submission, because we need to represent it!!!) Basically, our group is now role-play as the Submissions' Organization - The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). In other words, in this assessment, we are represent for - The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), this organization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of my group member, help us to make a Detailed Breakdown for This Entire Submission, here are everything she wrote in our group page: Hey all, I went through the submission thing and pointed out 6 key areas for the 6 of us to choose from. I honestly don't know if these areas answer the question or anything, so please keep in mind that this is just a suggestion. I copied and pasted most of the information under each section from the actual submission. They all look really easy, to be honest - the answers are right in the text. Again though, I'm not even sure if this set out is correct. Let me know! POTENTIAL SET OUT BELOW: 1. Who are we as an institute and what does our submission say? a. Discuss the charity and its intentions b. Discuss the submissions intentions + what is cyber racism? c. Discuss racial discrimination act and freedom of online expression in general d. What part of the RDA speaks about unlawful content etc e. What are the current local law provisions f. What do we perceive racism to be? g. What are some current broad cyber racism examples and how have they been dealt with? (Number 2 Below, is what my group want me to do, So This Is What We Need To Do Together as Assessment Task 3.) 2. What is s18C and why we don’t want to have s18c REMOVED from the RDA - a. concerned that the removal of S 18C, or of the ‘offend’ provision, would elevate some forms of cyber-racism from matters for reconciliation between the perpetrator and victim into criminal matters before the courts under S 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. (Cth). Similar conduct occurring offline would, however, leave a victim with no recourse. We are concerned about the way this violates the principle of ‘online offline consistency. b. We believe that the proposed changes to S 18C would significantly hinder Australia’s ability to block harmful content and could see previously blocked content ‘unblocked’, resulting in a virtual tsunami of hate. c. The removal of S 18C, or the reduction in scope of protections against racism, as indicated in the exposure draft, would negate the role S 18C currently plays. It would also serves as a green light to racists, both for content that would then become lawful, and (through fake and anonymous accounts) for the promotion of content that remained unlawful. d. What is the impact of s18c on cyber racism so far? e. Explain and use examples of where any of this has similarly happened and what was the result? 3. What do we believe would be a better alternative rather than the removal of 18c? what do we recommend? a. We believe the combination of S 18C and S 18D, as they currently stand, provides the best balance between protection from racism and the protection of freedom of speech b. b. recommend against the removal of the terms ‘offends’ or ‘insults’ from S 18C as we believe these terms capture certain classes of racist content, which we regularly see online, and which ought to remain unlawful. c. what does existing law say and how can we fix it? d. What do we think is further needed? e. would prefer that cyber-racism be dealt with under S 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), or under new criminal provisions for racial or religious vilification, rather than under telecommunications provisions such as S 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth). f. In addition to retaining S 18C, we would ideally like to see three further aspects included in relation to online hate speech: 1) A civil case against the platform provider or host should be able to be brought by the state, reducing the burden on private individuals to defend what is a public good. This could be similar to the role the State plays when ASIC takes action in relation to breaches of director duties. 2) If content is assessed and found to be unlawful there should be a small fine as well as an order to remove the content. This is to encourage the avoidance of formal determinations. 3) Any fine should be able to increase the longer the content remains accessible in Australia. 4) For example, failure to comply with a removal order within a specified amount of time could mean any effort at paying the fine is refused, and interest is applied to the fine at a penalty rate. ①　explain why for all of above ②　use examples 4. Cyber-racism and s18D a. believe the protection provided by S 18D is well balanced and ensure S 18C the reach of S 18C is appropriately limited. b. We believe the freedom to publish hate speech in certain appropriate contexts is both appropriate and indeed necessary. The requirement that such publication only occur when it is being done reasonably and in good faith is, we believe, a vital limitation on this exception. In the content of social media and grassroots campaigns against online racism, it is appropriate that the exception provided by S 18D is available to anyone pursuing a ‘genuine purpose in the public interest’ and is not limited to journalists, artists or researchers. This is the current scope of S 18D and no additional changes are needed. c. Look at 18D in more detail online and see what other organisations say too. d. Examples. 5. A more detailed look at racism and what we perceive it to be through this submission – the EXPOSURE DRAFT a. Here we will mention the EXPOSURE DRAFT b. Mention how racism is judged through our findings within this draft c. Subjective and objective test findings d. Discuss the “ordinary Australian” and their experience with racism e. Discuss the green light problem and what we believe it creates f. The Online Hate Prevention Institute believes any amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act which reduced existing areas of coverage would give a green light to racism. We believe this would lead to a rise in cyber-racism, and in particular to cyber-bullying which can lead to substance abuse, self harm and suicide. We believe this rise in cyber-racism based bullying would occur despite the fact that cyberbully itself, whether in the guise of cyber-racism or not, would remain unlawful under S474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and other State and Commonwealth legislation g. Examples 6. Overall changes that we want and don’t want, their repercussions long term + conclusion - Here we must discuss again and recap a. The Online Hate Prevention Institute believes that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth), and S 18C and D in particular, are working well. They are not only resolving issues through reconciliation, as intended, but are also playing a critical role in combating the more recent phenomena of cyber-racism. b. We don’t believe a case for change has been made, and we are deeply concerned that even minor changes to S 18C may significantly impact on Australia’s ability to apply our own standards to prevent the viral spread of online racist content. c. Discuss possible ramifications d. Outline our overall aim in this submission again e. Discuss the future of cyber racism and technology and where it could lead with and without reform f. What will happen if changes are made and aren’t g. Potential growth of cyber racism h. Our concerns about how it is not necessarily understood i. We call for more education about it and more regulation j. We want people to be more knowledgeable on it k. We want an open public inquiry! l. Why we overall do not want changes in the Act Another important suggestion is that in each paragraph we need to come back to the freedom of speech and how it relates because the question is about freedom of speech. Which means, we need to reference freedom of speech a lot so as to combine the question. Everyone should also have 2 powerpoint slides to go with their bit for the class presentation, maybe have examples and dot points of what you're saying? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** All in all, basically in this order, we just need to focus on the content of Number 2, because it is what we need to do: So, read carefully through the entire submission, and see if my group members' breakdown for No. 2 are correctly or not. 3. What is s18C and why we don’t want to have s18c REMOVED from the RDA - f. concerned that the removal of S 18C, or of the ‘offend’ provision, would elevate some forms of cyber-racism from matters for reconciliation between the perpetrator and victim into criminal matters before the courts under S 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. (Cth). Similar conduct occurring offline would, however, leave a victim with no recourse. We are concerned about the way this violates the principle of ‘online offline consistency. g. We believe that the proposed changes to S 18C would significantly hinder Australia’s ability to block harmful content and could see previously blocked content ‘unblocked’, resulting in a virtual tsunami of hate. h. The removal of S 18C, or the reduction in scope of protections against racism, as indicated in the exposure draft, would negate the role S 18C currently plays. It would also serves as a green light to racists, both for content that would then become lawful, and (through fake and anonymous accounts) for the promotion of content that remained unlawful. i. What is the impact of s18c on cyber racism so far? j. Explain and use examples of where any of this has similarly happened and what was the result? Then answer these questions through summarize content from the submission. And remember continually come back to freedom of speech and how it relates because the question is about freedom of speech. Also need to use 1-2 examples to explain and support your viewpoints. Moreover, references in this assessment, of course need to be academic and scholar. So the best is to find them in weekly required reading (From Subject Outline), or in UTS Librarys' readings. But if you can't find enough to prove your point, you can also go to Geogle Scholar (Yet, generally speaking, this assessments' word count limit only have around 333 words, so if you have 4 references, then it is already a lots).