The internet, and especially social media, have made it very easy for us to share our opinion publicly.

The famous Italian author Umberto Eco is known not to be a big fan of this development, stating bluntly that: “I social media danno diritto di parola a legioni di imbecilli che prima parlavano solo al bar dopo un bicchiere di vino, senza danneggiare la collettività. Venivano subito messi a tacere, mentre ora hanno lo stesso diritto di parola di un Premio Nobel.” ['Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community − but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner.']

Many will disagree with this forthright statement; we often find articles or stories that party-line up with our views and opinions online, so what’s wrong with sharing only those sections that enhance and glorify our opinions? After all, aren’t freedom of opinion and expression ingrained in our fundamental human rights?

One’s right to an opinion and expression is protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, such rights carry responsibilities that are often forgotten behind one’s perception of his right of freedoms.

It has been stated that nobody has the right to twist facts that cause damage to those who oppose him to influence those who place their trust in him and to project facts that are not true. This is especially true for comments published by a person in politics who has obligations towards citizens who, in turn, expect loyalty towards the truth and honesty.

In the present case, the court found that loyalty was not respected by the defendant when he twisted the facts to obscure the plaintiff.

This was confirmed by a judgment dated June 17, 2020, whereby Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, presiding over the Court of Appeal in its inferior jurisdiction, confirmed the judgment previously delivered by the Court of Magistrates on February 28, 2019, in the names ‘Malta Gay Rights Movement v Ivan Grech Mintoff”.

The defendant had made declarations that were found to be libellous and defamatory to the plaintiff movement using three channels, namely: TV, print and social media. 

Allegations had been made by the defendant on a TV programme that was televised on October 9, 2015, whereby he had alleged that the plaintiff movement “jieħdu flus mingħand nies li joqtlu tfal” [take money from people who kill children].

The defendant had also published a letter on one of Malta’s Sunday newspapers dated October 18, 2015, which was entitled ‘Lies and assumptions about MGRM and planned parenthood’, and had also published a post on his Facebook page on October 19, 2015, suggesting that the MGRM were in bed with the world’s foremost abortion promotions by allegations such as: [The movement] “admits to taking money…”, justifies it, and that it fills “their (being children) heads with harmful gender indoctrination”. 

Defamation under Maltese law is used as an umbrella term which includes libel and slander. Libel is considered to be defamation by publication, including printed matter or media content or whereby words or visual images are broadcast on a website, and slander is defamation by spoken words uttered with malice.

However, it is stated that words are not considered to be defamatory unless they cause serious harm or are likely to seriously harm the reputation of the specific person or persons making the claim. 

The first decision to be taken by the court during the preliminary hearing of a defamation suit is whether the case at hand may be referred to mediation or whether the parties are likely to reach an amicable agreement. In such case, even if the parties do not manage to find a mutual agreement, the case will continue to be heard before the court.

If the court considers the comment in question to constitute libel or slander, the court will then move to quantify the damages that may be awarded. In doing this, the court usually considers several elements, such as the nature and seriousness of the allegation made in the defamatory declaration, the means of publication, how far the said defamatory declaration would have been shared, whether an apology had been made or offered, proof regarding the plaintiff’s reputation and when truth of facts is invoked by the defendant, whether parts of the facts that would have been broadcast were true or otherwise.

Upon finding for the plaintiff instituting a defamation suit, the court may also order the operator or editor of a website to remove the published defamatory declaration and to order any other person responsible for such defamatory declaration from distributing, selling or showing material containing such a declaration.

Monetary compensation awarded in defamation suits is twofold; the plaintiff may be awarded pecuniary damages if he proves actual damages suffered and he may also be awarded moral damages. Moral damages are capped at €11,640 for libel and €5,000 for the finding of slander.

In this present case, the court considered that the plaintiff did not quantify any actual (as opposed to ‘moral’) financial damages suffered by the movement as a result of what the defendant had broadcast. The court also confirmed that the defendant, as a political figure, had the obligation to publicly comment about issues concerning public interest and that citizens expect direction regarding various issues, including abortion, from such political figures. 

The court considered that the allegations that had been made by the defendant were of a serious (and criminal) nature and it further noted that the defendant had also failed to share all the details that he was informed about while he made allegations based on facts that were substantially incorrect.

The courts finally found that the defendant’s allegations, which suggested that the MGRM obtained funds generated from abortion services, were made to impinge on the movement’s credibility, and thus the Court of Appeal confirmed that the defendant’s declarations were libellous and defamatory to the plaintiff movement, and ordered the defendant to pay the Malta Gay Rights Movement the sum of €3,000.

Rebecca Mercieca is a junior associate at Azzopardi, Borg & Abela Advocates.