The past four years underlined the im-portance of a free and independent press. At a time when all state authorities – with the notable exception of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman – were hijacked by the government, the independent press’s role of keeping the government in check became even more important.

The press uncovered scandals and pressed for information the government wanted to keep under wraps. The government was constantly reminded of the fact that, despite its large parliamentary majority, in a functioning democracy no power is absolute.

With stories of improper behaviour, scandals and corrupt practices dominating the news, the government took an ill-timed decision to bring to the fore plans for regulating the media.

In politics, just like in comedy, timing is everything. At a different point in time, the publication of the Media and Defamation Bill 2017 would have led to a sensible discussion in and out of Parliament, a discussion that would gleaned the draconian elements of the proposed law while salvaging the good elements.

In the present scenario, questions were raised not only on the particular aspects of the law but also on the government’s intentions in pushing for more control over internet-based news portals and websites. The government’s line of defence that it wants to put online news at a par with printed and broadcast media is weak and flawed.

One cannot expect the new media to adapt to the old rules as the government wishes to do. We need to change rules to take into account the new media. And our changes should reflect the liberal nature of the main medium for news dissemination, the internet.

Government’s attempts to box the internet run counter to its liberal stance on other fronts and reflects an anachronistic paternal attitude at best. These attempts were met with serious reservations, opposition and condemnations from all quarters, including from the Malta Information Technology Law Association and the very head of the Media Department of the University of Malta.

Two years ago, the Opposition had proposed changes to the Constitution by adding four new fundamental freedoms. The Opposition’s proposals were intended to give every citizen the right to access to internet, the right to access to information, to establish the right to liberty of dissemination of information and the right to informational self-determination.

This is the kind of new rights we should be discussing. This is the direction we should be taking and not registries and licences for web-portals simply because they disseminate news or discuss current affairs.

At the heart of all this is the question of how liberal do we want our society to be. Liberal, in very crude terms, means giving the liberty to every individual to decide his or her fate. In order to safeguard the common good, there needs to be checks and balances on individual rights.

This is how society works. The rights of one person should not result in the lesser rights of another.

Government has a role in keeping this balance but we saw that role progressively diminish over time as Western societies preferred the model of self-regulation over central imposition.

The momentum towards self-regulation has recently slowed down with the unwelcome resurgence of ultra-nationalist, far-right sentiments that are unable to embrace diversity and wish to return to some idealistic mythical.

This is the Great War of our times. It is the war between the worth of every individual irrespective of his or her background against a societal status quo that, I would say, exists only in the fictional recollection of a few.

This is not to say there is no place for values in our society. Anything but. We need values now more than ever. We need those values to make the right choices.

We need those values to guide us. But we do not need the government or any other authority to dictate those values to us. This is what the debate on the new Media and Defamation Act is all about.

Do we need to change our media and press laws? I say we do.

But these changes should be done in the spirit of new realities and not to preserve a situation that no longer makes sense.

I would say we have an opportunity to overhaul our press laws. We have an opportunity to strengthen our free press, which is struggling to come to grips with the financial realities of the new world.

We need to take bold decisions but these decisions cannot be backward-looking. They need to be forward-looking.

Our legislation should be guided by our vision for the future, a future where news will be more and more easily available, a time where everyone’s voice, including yours, rightly or wrongly, will have reach.

We grew up in a world where a simple one-word headline in the street conveyed an easily understood message. If it read Guilty, we knew exactly who was guilty and of what. Today, through posts in social media and online portals, we see hundreds of headlines every day, headlines that talk with equal fervour on the sublime as they do on the ridiculous.

News, fake or real, is put at the readers’ disposal without barriers.

This cacophony of news has its advantages but it also has it flaws that cannot be ignored.

The right of privacy, the individual’s right against defamation and the right to truth prevailing over falsehood should not be traded in for the sake of liberty. The key, however, is in finding the right balance.

The Bill as presented by the government failed to find that key.

Mario de Marco is deputy leader of the Nationalist Party.