A story published by One Media, claiming that Special Olympics athletes were insulted during Republic Day protests four years ago, fell short of “the standards of responsible journalism”, and was defamatory in respect of civil society activist Manuel Delia.

That was the outcome of a libel suit filed by Delia over the story that was published on the online site www.one.com.mt and also aired on the television station’s news in December 2019, along with footage of the public protest organised by civil society on Republic Day that year. 

The story ran along the lines that people taking part in those “violent protests” held in Valletta, had targeted “individuals who had nothing to do with the purpose behind such protests”.

Those “individuals” were the athletes who participated in the Special Olympics and who, that day, were entering the Palace of the President to be awarded their medals. 

The article also featured a good-sized photo of the protesters, focusing on Delia who was the only one looking in the direction of the camera. 

Although the article made no reference to the activist and blogger and did not mention him by name, that photo formed a prominent and integral part of the story, making up together with the title, one-third of the whole. 

Delia was one of the organisers of that protest along with NGOs Repubblika and Occupy Justice and he also actively participated on the day. 

Although it could not be excluded that the photo was selected without the specific intent of singling out Delia, making him stand out among the other demonstrators, intention in this context of defamation law is “immaterial”.

When taken within the context of the title and contents of the article, that photo implied that Delia was among those who allegedly insulted and offended the athletes with special needs. 

Taken alone, the photo led to no implication but when taken as a whole the “scenario changed radically”, observed the court, presided over by Magistrate Rachel Montebello. 

The title followed by the sizeable photo, at first glance, led the readers to associate the activists identifiable in that picture-specifically Delia- with the insults mentioned in the title. 

The text of the article reinforced further the implication that Delia was among “some” protesters who allegedly insulted and offended the athletes. 

And the court found nothing in the text to neutralize that “clear inference” stemming from the title and photo. 

If anything, it further highlighted the defamatory meaning conjured up by the title and the photo in the mind of any ordinary reader. 

When read together, the article implied that Delia, well-known for his role in organising protests to criticise the Labour government, was “among the protesters who insulted and offended the athletes with special needs on their special day”.

That consequently implied that Delia was “an insensitive person who looked down upon persons with a disability, to such extent that he did not mind showing a lack of respect and dignity towards persons with special needs so as to put across a political message”.

As a prominent civil society activist, blogger and government critic, it was essential for his reputation to be serious, sensitive and a person of integrity.

The inference stemming from the story was an attack on the applicant’s character and aroused a sense of dislike in his regard. 

The defendants did not plead the veracity of the facts alleged by the article which could easily be proven. 

Instead, they claimed that it was a value judgment.

The witnesses produced by the applicant not only all categorically denied that any of the protesters had insulted the athletes, but confirmed that none of the athletes had gone past the protesters along Republic Street. 

Nor did the defendants put forward any evidence to prove that Delia had actually insulted anyone. 

None of the protesters were seen or heard on footage insulting or making fun of the athletes. 

One Media’s head of news, Owen Galea, testified that he was not present at the Republic Day events but had sent a team of journalists, none of whom were summoned to confirm or deny the claims. 

As for the defendant’s argument that the article was in the public interest, the court observed that while the story was in the public interest, the “clear cut identification” of Delia in the main picture, was not. 

Linking the applicant to the alleged insults against the athletes did not serve public interest. 

The article failed to satisfy the “standards of responsible journalism”, concluded the court, declaring that the story was defamatory and ordering Galea as head of news to pay €1,000 in moral damages. 

Jason Micallef, as executive chairman of One Productions and Ruth Vella as head of broadcasting were declared non-suited.