How the free press is muzzled

It’s funny how certain people in the political scene decide something is important only when it personally affects them.

Criminal libel has been on the statute books in Malta for years, yet it was only when Labour candidate Manuel Mallia foolishly remarked that he would be pressing for the imprisonment of Nationalist general secretary Paul Borg Olivier, after an article appeared on the PN media website, that the issue was catapulted into the headlines.

Sections of the media have been banging a drum for years at the callously draconian provisions in Malta which serve to muzzle the free press. Yet the political parties – deeming the situation suits them – have happily turned a deaf ear to pleas to rectify the situation.

To make matter worse for the media, there are two avenues for criminal libel: one is under the Press Act, which is itself in need of reform, while the other – even more restrictive – is listed in the Criminal Code. Such has the aggression of libel become, along with the willingness to batter or silence the press, that there is a trend among people who feel aggrieved to go for the latter.

This means that journalists and editors are at daily risk of acquiring a criminal record in the course of their work, while – as Dr Mallia ineloquently reminded everyone in recent days – they also run the risk of imprisonment.

It’s true that such an unacceptable remedy has not been resorted to in Malta for some time, but there is no guarantee that a maverick magistrate or judge – and there are a few around – may not make use of such an avenue.

We have witnessed this very close to home in Italy – the only other EU country to criminalise libel – which of late has seen a sustained campaign to amend the law after journalists were inexcusably jailed.

Without doubt, the media are under an obligation to ensure their stories are not libellous. Though there is need for more protection from the Press Act, especially in relation to statements made by politicians, the courts are entitled to come down hard on organisations that have not done their job properly; or worse, those with bad motivations.

However, two points arise here: one, the law must be applied to the virtual sphere as well as print and broadcast media; secondly, redress must be pursued only through the civil courts. Otherwise freedom of the press is at risk.

There is another law which the politicians will not talk about, and that is Article 114 of the General Elections Act. That too contemplates imprisonment for any media organisation that prints anything “likely to influence” voters on Friday or Saturday.

While it makes sense to have some form of law to be in place limiting the type of comment or reportage during a short period of reflection, especially on polling day itself, such a catch-all blanket provision is unhealthy and out of sync with modern times.

Moreover, during the 2008 election the reflection provision was respected by all established media houses and yet openly flouted on the internet, placing those exercising responsibility at a grave disadvantage. No action was taken against the law breakers.

It is a sad fact that a newspaper like this one is prohibited from reporting the two parties’ final mass meetings. Come Friday, we will be forced to pretend that they did not happen. Or, as with libel, risk imprisonment. So much for freedom of the press.