The Social Responsibility Media Theory
The Social Responsibility Media Theory stipulates that everyone has the right to use media to express themselves freely. The ethical aspect of the theory takes into consideration the fact that professional ethics, community opinion, and consumer action control the media (Peterson, 2019). Therefore, anyone using the media should uphold morals and ethics within the community. It is worth noting that the definition of right and wrong is ambiguous since morality is a social construct. Nevertheless, the use of media should adhere to specific moral and legal rules and regulations that recognize private rights and protect vital social interests (McLean, 2017). The media should assume the obligation of social responsibility, and if they fail to adhere to such, a regulatory authority like the one set up in New Zealand should compel them. This paper delves into the significance and the extent to which laws on sedition and defamation are set up in New Zealand to enforce social responsibility on the media.
Sedition laws limit the freedom of speech and expression, which forms one of the critical aspects and tenets of democracy. Social responsibility media theory advocates for freedom of speech (Braddock, 2012). The sedition law in New Zealand presents one of the obstacles to equality and democratic space. On the pretext of fighting terror and terrorism-related acts, the government applies the law to punish political dissidents, thereby limiting the democratic space for the citizens. For a country that prides itself on being a democracy, the freedom of speech and expression should be guaranteed for the people to freely and constructively criticize the government. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, meaning that every citizen has a right to agree or disagree with each other or the government (Schauer, 2017). The continuous and systematic use of the sedition law shows that the government is intolerant towards disagreements. Therefore, the sedition laws go against the principles of social responsibility media theory, which advocate for the freedom of speech and expression.
The main objective of defamation laws is to protect citizens from damaging and false statements. The laws provide significant recourse for people who false, and unfounded comments have damaged their reputations, finances, health, or careers (Bonner, 2019). Notably, the laws on defamation often conflict with the constitutional provisions on the freedom of speech. It is vital to protect people from statements that are harmful and untrue. Besides, the law should offer citizens the freedom to speak freely without fear of reprisal. Towards this end, people should understand that freedom of speech comes with responsibility (Ministry of Justice, 2017). When a person makes a factual statement, then they are not liable to a defamation lawsuit. However, when a person makes a statement or opinion that damages the reputation of a company or another individual, then they are liable for a defamation lawsuit. Individuals should understand that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which has specific responsibilities. Therefore, defamation law is necessary since it protects individuals from malicious reputational damage.
In conclusion, social responsibility media theory advocates for freedom of speech. The citizens of any country, including New Zealand, should have the freedom of speech and expression for the propagation of a healthy democratic space. Irresponsible application of the laws on sedition and defamation is immoral and unethical since it limits democratic scope and enslaves the citizenry. Besides, restricting the freedom of speech in the pretext of fighting terrorism is morally wrong. On the other hand, citizens should understand that freedom of speech and expression bears specific responsibilities. Malicious, harmful, and unfounded reputational damage to an individual or entity is also immoral.