Freedom of expression is a democratic ideal. The standard philosophical authority for free speech is John Stuart Mill, who warned of the dangers of intellectual repression and the discouragement of received opinion. But he also accepted that a society may restrict individual freedoms, including freedom of expression, to prevent extreme cases of harm to others.

Mill did not consider abuse, offence, insult or humiliation at all harmful. Freedom of expression holds that uncomfortable, painful, even offensive utterances fall within the bounds of liberty. That tradition is best expressed in the much-invoked maxim, attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Freedom of speech is a much cherished principle of western democracy which carries rights as well as responsibilities. Matters of national security and commercial and libel law inhibit its force – sometimes severely and disproportionately.

In Malta, freedom of expression did not arrive until the late 19th century and has been stultified by restrictive and abused laws of criminal libel. The government has now belatedly seen the light. Prompted by a criminal libel suit, which a minister ill-advisedly coupled with a punitive precautionary warrant against the offending journalist, widespread public outcry at his disproportionate response has galvanised the government into action.

Caught on the back foot, it has now published a long-promised Bill, the Media and Defamation Law. The draft, which will supplant the existing Press Act, contains much that is good and these parts have been welcomed by those in the media whose freedom has long been constrained. Other elements, however, need to be revised.

With the punishment for libel posing a menacing challenge to freedom of the press in Malta, the removal of criminal libel from the statute book – together with the introduction of a mediation stage and preliminary hearing for court defamation cases – will go a long way to protecting journalism from vexatious and frivolous libel suits.

The proposal to remove the precautionary warrants of seizure in libel cases is likewise a welcome move. The issuing of a garnishee order against a journalist at the pre-judgment stage of proceedings was unprecedented – though it was not against the law to do so – as this measure had not been conceived as a means of gagging the press. Hence the public outcry. The new law is not retroactive – withdrawing his order would have brought the minister in line with the proposed law.

More controversially, the new Bill doubles the maximum damages for libel in civil cases to €20,000, meaning they will be heard before a judge. This could have the regressive effect of discouraging journalists and publishing houses from pursuing particularly sensitive stories or news items. It is a feature of the Bill which should be revisited at the committee stage.

The Bill is also attempting to bring the online world on a par with the print world by obliging editors of “news websites” to register their names with the media registrar in line with print media requirements. There has been a strong reaction to this proposal on the basis that any move to restrict the liberal nature of the internet is regressive. This is clearly another aspect of the Bill which, at the least, requires greater definition and clarification to ensure it does not stifle journalistic freedom.

The proposed Media and Defamation Law is an overdue affirmation of the importance of free expression but it requires some fine-tuning. In their debates in Parliament, it is vital that MPs on both sides do not seek to score party points on a matter of such fundamental importance to a liberal democracy.

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.