Times of Malta has always fought for the right to freedom of expression and suffered the consequences. The media company’s building in Valletta was razed to the ground on Black Monday, in October 1979, because it never feared to speak its mind. But it did so in full respect of the rule of law, deeming it necessary that a healthy, thriving democracy depended on a nation being truly civilised, in all senses, including being responsible and tolerant.

In other words, freedom of expression is not absolute, as a long list of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights would show. Although any individual, organisation and political party/alliance is free to express opinions, they are bound to remain within the limits of the law and respect the rights and dignity of others.

The Press Act considers as an offence instances where publications/broadcasts “threaten, insult, or expose to hatred, persecution or contempt, a person or group of persons because of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, religion or belief or political or other opinion, disability”. So when the Broadcasting Authority allowed – ordered is a better word – PBS to air a promotional spot produced by a far-right group linking migrants with diseases and crime, there was widespread condemnation.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said the government condemned without reservation the political spot, which transmitted “a xenophobic message”. Such messages, the spokesman rightly noted, were not acceptable in a democratic society.

Many felt the same way, even PBS, it seems, which still aired the promo – arguing that it has no control on such spots and it has to abide by the directives issued by the Broadcasting Authority.

Procedures governing European Parliament election broadcasts in the past did lay down that PBS did not need to vet party productions and messages by candidates.

They also included an indemnity form in which parties taking part in the scheme undertake that they “shall not knowingly include in any political spot or message by a candidate provided by them in any manner whatsoever and in particular whether by way of visual images, sounds, words, music, pictorial representations or actions any defamatory, seditious, libellous, offensive or any matter which constitutes an injurious falsehood or slander of title”.

It is not known whether such procedures still stand. If they do, PBS could have objected if it considered the spot in question to be offensive. But even if they are not, nobody is above the law, and if PBS felt the spot in question encouraged racial hatred or risked doing so, it should have assumed the responsibilities imposed upon it by the Press Act and instituted court action to stop the broadcast. If PBS faltered in this case, the Broadcasting Authority’s action was unpardonable.

It is fair to assume that all political broadcasts submitted for transmission are vetted by the regulator. But judging by this case, it appears such vetting is not at all thorough. For why should the Broadcasting Authority be so wise after the event and declare, so barefacedly, that “it is now becoming evident that through an association of ideas the spot is creating a situation which could lead to incitement and racial hatred”?

A worse indictment of itself there could not be. The regulator failed in its constitutional duty to ensure high standards in broadcasting and it should now shoulder responsibility for such an unacceptable shortcoming.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.