The Rabelais Case involved a student newspaper publishing a manual on shoplifting, which they said was protected by the implied right to freedom of political communication because the manual was commenting on the divide between rich and poor. The paper was banned, and they challenged the ban.
The Federal Court applied the High Court’s definition of ‘political communication’ and found that the implied right does not extend to this, because the right only covers speech helping the “development of public opinion on the whole range of issues which an intelligent citizen should think about”: manuals on crime do not come within this definition.
This impact of this case on the protection of rights is that the scope of the implied freedom of political communication was made clearer regarding what falls within it and what is considered outside its scope. The High Court refused the Rabelais editors special leave to appeal, suggesting their disinclination to expand the definition to cover a wider range of scenarios.