How many members of this group caught the interview on SBS news between Geoffrey Robertson and Stan Grant.
Did anyone else hear Geoffrey Robertson mention the word 'responsibility' when he was talking about 'free speech', journalist's rights and a Bill of Rights?
Perhaps I missed it but I do not think so. Surely as a member of the legal profession Geoffrey Robertson should have been aware that freedoms also carry responsibilities. Journalists need certain freedoms if they are to do their jobs. Does that not also means that they have certain responsibilities, some sort of code of ethics?
Australian journalism often seems tainted with a lack of probity.
Do journalists have a duty to be honest, fair and truthful or do they have the right to try and influence, especially influence by omission or deception?

I think you will agree with me communicat, the paparazzi had to take some responsibility for the death of Princess Dianna. If her car was not chased to make it go faster, it would have been slower and less likely for a drunk driver to have an accident. Then there is Allan Jones. Who once said that he had a right to his privacy? Responsibility or truth? Or am I confusing this with privacy? Respecting a person's privacy is, in a way, a responsibility, even if it may not encourage the truth.

Princess Diana died for two reasons.
1. She did not wear a seat belt.
2. The dopey French do not have rail barriers on the pillars in the
underpass. I remember realising that when I first drove on that road
around Paris many years before Diana's death.
It just would not be allowed here.
Interestingly, they still not have put barriers on the pillars despite
the criticism of investigators. I suppose it would be admitting failure.
If they had the barriers on the pillars the car would have been diverted
off and would not have had the sudden stop that did.

Er, I did not want to turn this into a discussion on Princess Diana - I was querying whether Geoffrey Robertson should have mentioned responsibility along with his other demands.

Well yes communicat, it was a little off topic, but it had some
relevance as the comment I was replying to put rersponsibility onto
the paperartzi for causing the accident.

The interview was brief -- possibly edited, and the point he was attempting to make was the need for a 'bill of rights'. The fact that he didnt mention on screen the responsibilities of journalists, is irrelevant, he also didn't mention their obligation to be honest, nor their obligaion not to present other journalists' work as their own.... nor a dozen things that they should or shouldnt do. Your comment is sadly typical of people wanting to denigrate an argument... take a minor point and argue about that rather than grasp the major issue and grapple with that. OK, you think he should have mentioned responsibilities.... but what do you think about having an australian bill of rights? That was the topic!

My point was that (I believe) you cannot have rights without also taking on the responsibilities that go with those rights. If you do not believe that then yes it is fine to talk just about a Bill of Rights but that would surely also mean that a Bill of Rights would be unworkable? It would be all about "my rights" not the rights of others - which, by virtue of considering them, means "my responsibilities".
Maybe I am alone in this - "Your position does not give you the right to command. It only imposes on you the duty of so living your life that others can accept your commands without being humiliated." Dag Hammarsjkjold. Substitute 'commands' for 'rights' and it seems like a reasonable sort of philosophy to me - or perhaps "Love one another" in the widest sense of "Respect one another" - again it means responsibilities, not just rights.
Do I make sense or do I have it all wrong?

In a Constitution or Bill of Rights, every ‘right’ automatically creates a ‘duty’ or ‘responsibility’. In the first three Rights in the UN Declaration, for example:
1. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
2. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
3. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Number 1 automatically creates numbers 2 and 3 and a host of other duties, caveats, and responsibilities. If everyone has the right to life – then murder is automatically forbidden.
If a woman has the ‘right’ to control over her own body, and to determine whether or not she will bear a child, then automatically, contraception and abortion are permitted.
If we all have the right to live in an unpolluted world, then automatically, we have a responsibility to keep the world clean and unpolluted. It is not necessary to enumerate the responsibilities.

That's a very simplistic approach which does not work. There is a need to enumerate responsibilities - not just assume their existence from rights