The Queensland Referendum and fixed four-year parliamentary terms: why the 'yes' vote won

On Saturday 19th March 2016, Queenslanders voted in the quadrennial local council elections. At the same time, a referendum was held on the question of fixed four-year parliamentary terms. Queenslanders were asked to decide on whether they should join the other Australian states (with the exception of Tasmania) and territories by adopting fixed four-year parliamentary terms. Up until the referendum, Queensland and the Commonwealth House of Representatives were the only Parliaments in Australia still using non-fixed three-year parliamentary terms. Even all local councils throughout Australia have adopted the quadrennial electoral cycle

Towards a regulatory framework in the regulation of social media

This article discusses the reasons for, and possible models associated with regulating social media. In regards to a possible regulatory framework governing computer mediated communication ("CMC") and social networking sites ("SNS"), Perritt proposes what he terms as a 'hybrid regulatory scheme for the internet'.[1] According to Perritt, such a scheme would consist of, among other things, extended tort-based theories of public nuisance and intentional interference.[2] The strength of this argument seems to be directed at corporations and would rely on a process of private regulation between each corporate entity. There are obvious limitations with this approach, especially where the potential for harm lies with individuals as opposed to corporations; especially individuals with varying levels of legal capacity to bring an action against perpetrators in tort

What are the limits of state coercion when it comes to regulating social media?

In the context of social media, the question, 'to what extent can the State exercise legitimate authority in regards to the imposition of regulation?' is concerned with understanding the limits of State control and law-making capacity in regards to what is considered a legitimate use of regulating the use of social media. In this context, this question represents a contribution to the age-old debate of State control versus personal freedoms and liberty. This investigation is situated within the epistemology that has developed over a long period of time looking at the question of State versus individual freedoms, but differentiates itself by addressing a very contemporary phenomenon which is social media

Importance of a theoretical framework in the regulation of social media

Any form of regulation that may impact upon communication, freedom of expression and other personal freedoms, generally evokes stringent criticism with regards to censorship and State dominance over the rights of individuals. A fundamental philosophical tenet of Western liberal democracy is that the less intervention from the State, the better it is for society as a whole

Ambiguity of unlawful stalking – s 359B(d)(i) knowledge on the part of the victim

This article examines in detail the legislative requirements for unlawful stalking in Queensland and in doing so, highlights possible ambiguities as to whether the victim is required to know that the alleged perpetrator is engaged in certain activities

The purpose of unlawful stalking laws and the rationale for state coercion

Stalking usually occurs as part of a concerted effort by the perpetrator either explicitly or implicitly to make their victim(s) aware of the presence of the stalker.[1] Most of the stalking related cases that have arisen in Queensland since the enactment of anti-stalking legislation have occurred where the victim was aware of such actions by the perpetrator. As such the question whether the victim is required to know they are in fact being stalked, has not arisen in many of these prosecutions. To illustrate the types of conduct that might typify acts of stalking, one needs look no further than the case of R v Ali which involved one party who perpetrated a range of acts over a period of 18 months that culminated in a conviction of stalking and a sentence of three years jail, pursuant to s 359B(d).[2

The limits to regulating social media – a dualist construction of the technical and philosophical

In positing a narrative involving the limits to regulating social media there are two fundamental variables that must be considered. The first involves possibly one of the greatest challenges of all that the State faces to introducing additional regulation regarding the use of social media – this relates to the physical barriers to regulation such as the ability of enforcement agencies to police the millions of individual interactions occurring simultaneously around the globe

Ambiguity of unlawful stalking – s 359B(d)(i) knowledge on the part of the victim

This article examines in detail the legislative requirements for unlawful stalking in Queensland and in doing so, highlights possible ambiguities as to whether the victim is required to know that the alleged perpetrator is engaged in certain activities

Queensland's anti-stalking laws: when knowledge matters

This article raises a dilemma that exists for the judiciary in relation to s 359(d)(i) of the Qld Criminal Code dealing with unlawful stalking. The ambiguity was highlighted in several cases where the victims were unaware of the alleged stalker's activities until after the perpetrators were apprehended by the authorities. The unusual question then arose as to whether the victims were required to show a mental element—namely knowledge or fear—of the alleged stalking activity. Some case law suggests that the courts are reluctant to interpret the legislation in a way that requires the prosecution to show that the victim was aware of the alleged stalking. However, such an interpretation may not be completely correct given the wording of the provisio

The inner conflict of liberalism in defining the limits to state coercion in relation to social media

The genesis of the problem between social media and State regulation can be seen as an issue relating to competing rights – on the one hand the rights of users to use this technology unfettered from State interference and on the other, the right of society to be protected from the myriad of harms that are alleged to stem from the use of social media. As such, even if one is to accept the tenets of liberalism as a legitimate political philosophy, it is arguable that liberalism itself is predisposed to an inner conflict when assessing the limits of State coercion and individual rights. This is due in part to the inherent flexibility or benefits, some would assert, within liberalism to allow for varying interpretations of the same social phenomena. That is to say, even within a society where liberalism is the accepted hegemonic system there is no uniform determination of what constitutes a legitimate level of State control as this would vary according to the social context and question for consideration