Assessment task 3: Mock Inquiry

Order Description This essay is in" rel="nofollow">indeed 1 page, but it needs around 333 Words. Hope it is ok. This is the last assessment of the subject of Regulatin" rel="nofollow">ing Communication, and it happens to be a Group Project. So the quantity of the written part wouldn't have that much. Due to our group have 6 Members, and the assessment's total word count requirement are 2,000 words, so just like other members in" rel="nofollow">in our group, my part will only requires around 333 words (Please do keep this in" rel="nofollow">in min" rel="nofollow">ind, because if we write too much, other members will be hard to manage their own part). Due to this assignment again" rel="nofollow">in, need academic and scholarship references. So please go fin" rel="nofollow">ind few from our Uni.s' Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Library - UTS Library, to support your viewpoin" rel="nofollow">ints. And again" rel="nofollow">in just in" rel="nofollow">in case, if you lose or deleted all the in" rel="nofollow">information I gave you before. Then here they are: I will attached this subjects' Subject Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine ((Please do use it, because all the Weekly Required Readin" rel="nofollow">ing's References List are all in" rel="nofollow">in there) in" rel="nofollow">in this order. So when you want to fin" rel="nofollow">ind any specific readin" rel="nofollow">ings. All you need to do is, Google 'UTS Library', click in" rel="nofollow">in the website, and then type '58202' in" rel="nofollow">in the search bar. Then there will have All the Required Readin" rel="nofollow">ings For This Subject. Yet, because those Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Readin" rel="nofollow">ings will Require to Log-in" rel="nofollow">in, so please use the Student Number and Password to Access them: Student No.- 11907589, and Password- 19950407$jun. Here are more detail of Assessment task 3 - Mock Inquiry, From The Subject Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine: Weight: 40% Length: 2,000 words per group (For this order: 333 words for Our Part) Task: Students form a group to present their case at an in" rel="nofollow">in-class mock in" rel="nofollow">inquiry, and submit a group submission. Criteria: Understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of relevant material in" rel="nofollow">introduced in" rel="nofollow">in the subject Engagement with the politics of communication and regulation Quality of materials deployed in" rel="nofollow">in the simulation Contribution to a shared group position in" rel="nofollow">in the Mock Inquiry Further in" rel="nofollow">information: Student groups present at an in" rel="nofollow">in-class mock in" rel="nofollow">inquiry in" rel="nofollow">into the regulation of communication. The mock in" rel="nofollow">inquiry is seekin" rel="nofollow">ing public responses on the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in" rel="nofollow">in Australia (as outlin" rel="nofollow">ined at Week 11 in" rel="nofollow">in this subject outlin" rel="nofollow">ine). In Week 7 each small group is assigned a role-pay for the mock in" rel="nofollow">inquiry, for in" rel="nofollow">instance as a community organisation, a thin" rel="nofollow">ink-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-min" rel="nofollow">inute presentation designed to in" rel="nofollow">influence the in" rel="nofollow">in-class in" rel="nofollow">inquiry, in" rel="nofollow">in any genre (powerpont in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing video, sound, etc). The group then submits a written submission in" rel="nofollow">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" rel="nofollow">in Assessment Task 3 - Mock Inquiry: Which I'm not sure if I am in" rel="nofollow">in the right track or not, but I thin" rel="nofollow">ink it won't be too wrong. ***Every sin" rel="nofollow">ingle group, choose a Submission through the in" rel="nofollow">internet, that group members are all agree its' suitable to present for assessment 3. Which in" rel="nofollow">in Our Group the Submission We Picked is: https://zh.scribd.com/document/211584036/Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine-Hate-Prevention-Institute-OHPI-Submission-on-Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine-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 Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). In other words, in" rel="nofollow">in this assessment, we are represent for - The Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), this organization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of my group member, help us to make a Detailed Breakdown for This Entire Submission, here are everythin" rel="nofollow">ing she wrote in" rel="nofollow">in our group page: Hey all, I went through the submission thin" rel="nofollow">ing and poin" rel="nofollow">inted out 6 key areas for the 6 of us to choose from. I honestly don't know if these areas answer the question or anythin" rel="nofollow">ing, so please keep in" rel="nofollow">in min" rel="nofollow">ind that this is just a suggestion. I copied and pasted most of the in" rel="nofollow">information under each section from the actual submission. They all look really easy, to be honest - the answers are right in" rel="nofollow">in the text. Again" rel="nofollow">in 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 in" rel="nofollow">institute and what does our submission say? a. Discuss the charity and its in" rel="nofollow">intentions b. Discuss the submissions in" rel="nofollow">intentions + what is cyber racism? c. Discuss racial discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination act and freedom of onlin" rel="nofollow">ine expression in" rel="nofollow">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 in" rel="nofollow">into crimin" rel="nofollow">inal matters before the courts under S 474.17 of the Crimin" rel="nofollow">inal Code Act 1995. (Cth). Similar conduct occurrin" rel="nofollow">ing offlin" rel="nofollow">ine would, however, leave a victim with no recourse. We are concerned about the way this violates the prin" rel="nofollow">inciple of ‘onlin" rel="nofollow">ine offlin" rel="nofollow">ine consistency. b. We believe that the proposed changes to S 18C would significantly hin" rel="nofollow">inder Australia’s ability to block harmful content and could see previously blocked content ‘unblocked’, resultin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in a virtual tsunami of hate. c. The removal of S 18C, or the reduction in" rel="nofollow">in scope of protections again" rel="nofollow">inst racism, as in" rel="nofollow">indicated in" rel="nofollow">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 remain" rel="nofollow">ined unlawful. d. What is the impact of s18c on cyber racism so far? e. Explain" rel="nofollow">in 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 combin" rel="nofollow">ination 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 again" rel="nofollow">inst the removal of the terms ‘offends’ or ‘in" rel="nofollow">insults’ from S 18C as we believe these terms capture certain" rel="nofollow">in classes of racist content, which we regularly see onlin" rel="nofollow">ine, and which ought to remain" rel="nofollow">in unlawful. c. what does existin" rel="nofollow">ing law say and how can we fix it? d. What do we thin" rel="nofollow">ink is further needed? e. would prefer that cyber-racism be dealt with under S 18C of the Racial Discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination Act 1975 (Cth), or under new crimin" rel="nofollow">inal provisions for racial or religious vilification, rather than under telecommunications provisions such as S 474.17 of the Crimin" rel="nofollow">inal Code Act 1995(Cth). f. In addition to retain" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing S 18C, we would ideally like to see three further aspects in" rel="nofollow">included in" rel="nofollow">in relation to onlin" rel="nofollow">ine hate speech: 1) A civil case again" rel="nofollow">inst the platform provider or host should be able to be brought by the state, reducin" rel="nofollow">ing the burden on private in" rel="nofollow">individuals to defend what is a public good. This could be similar to the role the State plays when ASIC takes action in" rel="nofollow">in relation to breaches of director duties. 2) If content is assessed and found to be unlawful there should be a small fin" rel="nofollow">ine as well as an order to remove the content. This is to encourage the avoidance of formal determin" rel="nofollow">inations. 3) Any fin" rel="nofollow">ine should be able to in" rel="nofollow">increase the longer the content remain" rel="nofollow">ins accessible in" rel="nofollow">in Australia. 4) For example, failure to comply with a removal order within" rel="nofollow">in a specified amount of time could mean any effort at payin" rel="nofollow">ing the fin" rel="nofollow">ine is refused, and in" rel="nofollow">interest is applied to the fin" rel="nofollow">ine at a penalty rate. ①　explain" rel="nofollow">in 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" rel="nofollow">in certain" rel="nofollow">in appropriate contexts is both appropriate and in" rel="nofollow">indeed necessary. The requirement that such publication only occur when it is bein" rel="nofollow">ing done reasonably and in" rel="nofollow">in good faith is, we believe, a vital limitation on this exception. In the content of social media and grassroots campaigns again" rel="nofollow">inst onlin" rel="nofollow">ine racism, it is appropriate that the exception provided by S 18D is available to anyone pursuin" rel="nofollow">ing a ‘genuin" rel="nofollow">ine purpose in" rel="nofollow">in the public in" rel="nofollow">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" rel="nofollow">in more detail onlin" rel="nofollow">ine 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 fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings within" rel="nofollow">in this draft c. Subjective and objective test fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings d. Discuss the “ordin" rel="nofollow">inary Australian” and their experience with racism e. Discuss the green light problem and what we believe it creates f. The Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Hate Prevention Institute believes any amendment to the Racial Discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination Act which reduced existin" rel="nofollow">ing areas of coverage would give a green light to racism. We believe this would lead to a rise in" rel="nofollow">in cyber-racism, and in" rel="nofollow">in particular to cyber-bullyin" rel="nofollow">ing which can lead to substance abuse, self harm and suicide. We believe this rise in" rel="nofollow">in cyber-racism based bullyin" rel="nofollow">ing would occur despite the fact that cyberbully itself, whether in" rel="nofollow">in the guise of cyber-racism or not, would remain" rel="nofollow">in 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" rel="nofollow">in and recap a. The Onlin" rel="nofollow">ine Hate Prevention Institute believes that the Racial Discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination Act 1975(Cth), and S 18C and D in" rel="nofollow">in particular, are workin" rel="nofollow">ing well. They are not only resolvin" rel="nofollow">ing issues through reconciliation, as in" rel="nofollow">intended, but are also playin" rel="nofollow">ing a critical role in" rel="nofollow">in combatin" rel="nofollow">ing 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 min" rel="nofollow">inor changes to S 18C may significantly impact on Australia’s ability to apply our own standards to prevent the viral spread of onlin" rel="nofollow">ine racist content. c. Discuss possible ramifications d. Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine our overall aim in" rel="nofollow">in this submission again" rel="nofollow">in 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 in" rel="nofollow">inquiry! l. Why we overall do not want changes in" rel="nofollow">in the Act Another important suggestion is that in" rel="nofollow">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 combin" rel="nofollow">ine the question. Everyone should also have 2 powerpoin" rel="nofollow">int slides to go with their bit for the class presentation, maybe have examples and dot poin" rel="nofollow">ints of what you're sayin" rel="nofollow">ing? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** All in" rel="nofollow">in all, basically in" rel="nofollow">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 in" rel="nofollow">into crimin" rel="nofollow">inal matters before the courts under S 474.17 of the Crimin" rel="nofollow">inal Code Act 1995. (Cth). Similar conduct occurrin" rel="nofollow">ing offlin" rel="nofollow">ine would, however, leave a victim with no recourse. We are concerned about the way this violates the prin" rel="nofollow">inciple of ‘onlin" rel="nofollow">ine offlin" rel="nofollow">ine consistency. g. We believe that the proposed changes to S 18C would significantly hin" rel="nofollow">inder Australia’s ability to block harmful content and could see previously blocked content ‘unblocked’, resultin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in a virtual tsunami of hate. h. The removal of S 18C, or the reduction in" rel="nofollow">in scope of protections again" rel="nofollow">inst racism, as in" rel="nofollow">indicated in" rel="nofollow">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 remain" rel="nofollow">ined unlawful. i. What is the impact of s18c on cyber racism so far? j. Explain" rel="nofollow">in 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 contin" rel="nofollow">inually 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" rel="nofollow">in and support your viewpoin" rel="nofollow">ints. Moreover, references in" rel="nofollow">in this assessment, of course need to be academic and scholar. So the best is to fin" rel="nofollow">ind them in" rel="nofollow">in weekly required readin" rel="nofollow">ing (From Subject Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine), or in" rel="nofollow">in UTS Librarys' readin" rel="nofollow">ings. But if you can't fin" rel="nofollow">ind enough to prove your poin" rel="nofollow">int, you can also go to Geogle Scholar (Yet, generally speakin" rel="nofollow">ing, this assessments' word count limit only have around 333 words, so if you have 4 references, then it is already a lots). All in" rel="nofollow">in all, please feel free to contact me any time, I will try my best to answer all the questions. Simultaneously, sin" rel="nofollow">incerely grateful for everythin" rel="nofollow">ing you do. Thank you, and wish you have a great day.