Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, together with a host of other luminaries, are definitively not amused by recent developments on this island of ours which threaten to turn some of their philosophical musings topsy-turvy.

These eminent philosophers extolled the virtue of prudence. They considered it, together with justice, temperance and fortitude, a cardinal virtue. These are virtues around which everything else revolves.

Plato, for example, bases his Republic on four virtues, prudence being one of them and the characteristic of the rulers to boot. Aristotle sang prudence’s praises in the Nicomachean Ethics, describing it as the habit of choosing right means to achieve worthy ends. Thomas Aquinas considered prudence to be the cause, measure and form of all virtues.

These ancient and scholastic philosophers considered prudence to be the auriga virtutum or the charioteer of the virtues.

But over here, as The Sunday Times of Malta can attest, prudence has turned out to be the gateway to trouble. Prudent action by this paper was the chariot to disaster not better living. In August 2010 this paper had sound and checked information that the nurses’ union (MUMN) group committee chairman at Mater Dei Hospital had swindled vulnerable patients out of hundreds of euros in collaboration with a salesman posing as a doctor. This was a story of public interest and merited publication.

Should the paper mention the name of the perpetrator or should it just give an indication of who he could be? This is never an easy decision to take in journalism. When a name is not published people’s speculation could hit the wrong target.

If, on the other hand, the name is published before the individual concerned is arraigned, one can be accused of trial by the media. Publishing the name makes the story a better read and this satisfies an important commercial need. If one opts against the publication of the name before arraignment, one can reduce harm, which is a very important ethical consideration and one of the basic principles of, for example, the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.

I have been in such situations many times. It is one of those lose/lose situations. But decide one must and this paper decided to opt for prudence and go for the ethical consideration over the commercial one.

Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas applauded. Our courts just booed and gave the thumbs down. The ethical decision was undermined by a legalistic snag.

It is a case about a technicality which should have never been protracted to these extremes

When the newspaper came to choose a title, a decision generally not taken by the journalist who pens the story, the choice went for the addition of a sub-title stating: ‘Top MUMN official investigated.’ This was quite a tame headline if I ever saw one. A sensationalist – and commercially provident – headline could have been: ‘Top MUMN official swindled patients’. The newspaper opted for prudence once more. Here is the snag. MUMN’s top brass are decided by statute and that the group committee chairman at Mater Dei Hospital is not considered to be one of the higher gods.

The MUMN top brass went to court led by Paul Pace, the then union president, and now, like William Mangion, an incumbent of a position of trust. The newspaper was ready to publicly state that its report did not refer to these gentlemen; as it clearly did not do.

But the stalwarts of MUMN wanted their pound (or is it euro?) of flesh. The courts found in their favour proving once more that the law – and not the presiding judges – could be an ass.

The addition of the word ‘top’ proved to be the undoing of the editor and the journalist. The courts’ decisions though, one assumes are legally sturdy, and in fact only managed to castigate the paper’s sense of prudence. Had the journalists opted for sensationalist reporting and decided to hang the MUMN official (though not a top one) in public even before his arraignment, all would have been satisfactory.

But the prudent and ethically inspired decision earned the editor and the journalist the wrong end of the stick. And what a long stick it is considering that its tail end is a garnishee order freezing their assets and most of their wages.

I was shocked when I heard this bit of news. Fines are paid by media houses; and can anyone image this media house absconding? It only held back from paying as a constitutional case on the matter is pending.

This could give the legal conclusion to the whole bizarre saga though perhaps the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, if needs be, will be the final arbiter. It is essential that things are taken to the highest level since this is clearly a case where our legislation is hindering instead of helping the freedom of expression and where such legislation has to be denounced and changed.

I am not saying that libelling people should be taken lightly. It definitively should not. I have long been the victim of prolonged character assassination campaigns by certain sectors of the media. I even had to institute several libel cases (all of which I won) to clear my name and put pressure on dishonest journalists to take responsibility for the lies they spread about me.

Consequently, I would have found it in me to sympathise with these MUMN officials had the Times of Malta been embarking on a vindictive and prolonged campaign against them. But this case is nothing of the sort.

This is a case of a prudent decision being punished because of the addition of the word ‘top’. It is a case about a technicality which should have never been protracted to these extremes. It is a threat to journalistic freedom. It can be that the actions of the top MUMN officials are buttressed by top legal reasoning but they are certainly not a specimen of the habit of choosing right means to achieve worthy ends, that is prudence.

Journalists are not amused either. Neither should people who cherish press freedom.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt