(Not) The Right of Reply

Another angle in our analysis of Press and media in the light of the law where we conclude that the Times managed to make a mockery of the right of reply.

The PLPN agreement on cancelling out the potential debts resulting out of libel cases was the latest indication of how we are managing to make a mockery of the laws that govern expression and communication. The inter-party flurry of libels has watered down the value of a libel case to a simple marketing ploy in which the final result that should be reached at the courts is actually irrelevant. The libel is useful because in the minds of the observer, the person suing for libel is already right – he would not have sued otherwise.

Another standard under pressure is that of “obscenity” and “public morals” as the courts are called upon time and time again to establish common standards in situations that vary from “Li tkisser sewwi”, to pole dancing queens to topless sunbathers (but not, funnily enough, to penis shaped monuments).  I guess we still have to hear a last word on that one but today I will focus on the famous “right of reply”.  The “right of reply” is a right that is granted under Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta  – the Press Act. Article 21 of the Press Act states as follows:

21. (1) Any person whose actions or intentions have been misrepresented or who has been subjected to an attack on hishonour, dignity or reputation, or to an intrusion into his private life by means of or in a newspaper or in any broadcast shall be entitled to demand and to have published forthwith, free of charge, in the same newspaper or on the same broadcasting medium, as the case may require, a statement by way of contradiction or explanation: (…)
(2) In the case of a newspaper, a reply in terms of subarticle (1) shall be published as a separate article and without being interpolated with any comments or other material that does not form part of the reply, with equal prominence as the publication in respect of which the right of reply is exercised and it shall not be lawful to shorten or edit the reply in such a manner as to prejudice the effective exercise of the right of reply under this article. The said statement shall be published not later than the second issue of the newspaper following the receipt of the request: (…)

On January 3, 2010, Roamer’s column on the Sunday Times of Malta spoke, among other things, about Franco Debono MP. Franco Debono felt that he had a right to reply and provided the Times with an article on the subject. Yesterday, the Sunday Times editor Steve Mallia was found guilty of breaching the provisions of the Press Act with regard to the right to reply. In addition, Steve Mallia was fined €1,164 for this same breach.

The timesofmalta.com reported the news yesterday in this manner:

The editor of The Sunday Times was fined €1,164 after he was found guilty of failing to print an article by an MP who invoked the right of reply to an opinion piece published in January.

Nationalist MP Franco Debono filed a complaint to the police about a specific paragraph in the weekly article that runs under the headline Roamers Column, published on January 3.

The paragraph reads: “Most have had their tuppence worth and then some more about the Woes and Noes and Yesses of Debono. Opinions have been tossed around like pancakes. The man is afraid of Speaker Louis Galea returning to the Front Bench. The man wants to be promoted to a ministerial post. Same man wishes to forge a name for himself in the eyes of his constituents; wants backbenchers to be given the dignity they deserve; wants a larger share in decision-making; enjoys the limelight this has given him; the discomfiture he has created; enjoys the idea of being a loose cannon; and so on and so on ad quasi infinitum.”

In proceedings that started and ended yesterday, Magistrate Silvio Meli found editor Steve Mallia guilty of breaching provisions in the Press Act regarding right of reply.
The Sunday Times will be appealing the decision.

So the Times is found guilty of not observing the right of reply. The right of reply was invoked when a person (in this case Franco Debono MP) felt that he needed to answer the contents of a paragraph that appeared in the Times. It goes without saying that the offending paragraph is the source of the problem – it contains information that Franco Debono feels that he needs to rectify using a right that even a court of law has recognised him. What does the Times do? Does it simply report the condemnation of its Sunday Editor? Does it stop at saying that it will appeal the case (as it has every right to)? Nope. It republishes the offending paragraph as an illustration of the case in question. Do you see the inconsistency here?

The Times does not only spit in the face of the offended MP but also indirectly cocks a snook at Magistrate Silvio Meli’s decision in court. True, they have until this Sunday to give Franco Debono the space for a right of reply but that does not mean that they can offend the spirit of the law in this manner. What is the point of the right of reply if the paper will reproduce the offending part of the article again even before the right of reply has been made use of? Will the Times online editor and the Times daily editor also be granting Franco Debono similar space to reply to the court report? I doubt it.

They will probably argue that this is simply a report and not a statement in itself. The truth is that this sort of action makes a mockery of the rights that are being protected by the law – whether an article is offensive or requires factual rectification does not make it any different. Reproducing the offensive, fallacious or controversial facts is not only under the belt but makes a mockery of the institutions and laws that are there to guarantee that the freedom of expression is not sullied by abuses. Steve Mallia, Ray Bugeja and Times of Malta take note.

If any of the persons mentioned in this post feel that their actions or intentions have been misrepresented or that they have been subjected to an attack on their honour, dignity or reputation they are free to submit their reply to this blog and I will give their reply equal unedited prominence in a blog post of its own.