A proposed reform of the press law has raised the spectre of Big Brother controlling the internet, but Justice Minister Owen Bonnici insists this was never the intent. He tells Kurt Sansone the government is willing to make changes.

The current law provides for the registration of editors of newspapers, radio and TV. You have now included editors of news websites. Why not drop registration altogether?

Our existing law was drafted when the internet did not even exist, and when it was last updated in 1996, the internet phenomenon had only just started. The fact that our existing law makes no reference to the internet was causing problems for online journalists who wanted to register with the press registrar but had their requests turned down.

In 2012, the Department of Information drafted a policy to cater for these situations despite the law making no reference to the internet. The policy stated that if the news portal had been in existence for at least six months, its journalists could be given facilities such as a press card. Some argue that registration should be dropped altogether, but others say the public has a right to know who the editor is.

We have had instances when somebody who felt aggrieved by what was written on Maltastar [the former Labour Party news portal] did not know against whom libel action should be filed, because the law did not allow the website’s editor to register. The complainant ended up taking action against the party leader instead. We had another case of someone who wanted to file libel proceedings against the General Workers’ Union’s news site iNews and ended up filing the case against the union’s general secretary. I believe this is ridiculous and it has to be addressed.

The failure of an editor to register may result in a fine of up to €1,000. This means it has to be very clear who is obliged to register, and this is the problem. The clear lines of the past may not be so well-defined on the internet, where it is easier for anybody with little or no money to set up a website or a blog.

The government’s intention was never to oblige private individuals who create websites to register. If this requires clarifying the [legal] definition further, we are open to proposals. But I am informed that the difficulties that arose in the past were to the contrary. We had individuals who wanted to register but could not because the law made no such provisions. Since the online policy introduced in 2012, the press registrar has been able to delineate what is a news website and what is not.

Should a politician decide which websites have to be registered?

I have heard comments that registration would lead to censorship of content. This is absolutely not the case. The Times of Malta has had its editors registered since forever and this never led to government control or censorship of content. Even the Nationalist Party’s newspapers, television and radio stations have always had their editors registered, and no one can claim this amounted to State censorship. We have to be practical and realistic.

What you say may hold water for established, mainstream media organisations, but the internet phenomenon extends far beyond these traditional news outlets.

We are not interested in any way in regulating this. If need be, we are ready to refine the definitions to make it clearer for everyone.

Let us assume someone has a Facebook page and uses it to regularly express opinions and disseminate facts related to news and current affairs. Is this person required to register?

Obviously not. It was never intended to be so. What we want is to extend the obligation to register that existed for traditional news outlets to online news websites. The obligation to register is not linked to Facebook, Twitter or any social media site. Nor does it apply to those individuals who like to post comments beneath online news stories.

What about somebody who has a blog about animal welfare issues, which may touch on flimsy subjects such as fashion for dogs, but has critical reviews of animal welfare policies?

It is obvious this individual will not have to register. This is like having someone producing a magazine on flowers. Was anyone in such a position ever asked to register as an editor from 1976 [when the Press Act became law]? No. Take for example the now defunct school magazine Is-Sagħtar. Nobody ever obliged the editor to register, and if he wanted to, the application would have probably been rejected, because it was not news. Let us not reinvent the wheel. The online policy has been in place since 2012, and it has not created any of the difficulties you raise. We are simply suggesting backing up that policy with law, and if the definition has to be refined, we are open to suggestions.

Isn’t it more difficult to define in the age of the internet?

It is more challenging.

Let me make this clear: Daphne’s blog is the least problematic, because she is identifiable

Let us take Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog. It is a personal blog with writing that ranges from pure gossip to hard news…

I have heard criticism that this law was intended to impact Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog. Let me make this clear: Daphne’s blog is the least problematic, because she is identifiable. I do not agree with her style, because she crosses the red line on what is ethical and respectable journalism, but she is well-known, and anybody who feels defamed by what she writes can file a libel case against her. She is the least of the problems in this debate. But I must reiterate that many journalists working for online mediums have wanted to register over the past years and were denied this by the registrar.

How do you justify the outcry over the new media law from many people outside the political realm such as the former Malta Communications Authority CEO Philip Micallef, who expressed serious reservations about the registration aspect?

I asked to meet Philip Micallef so that I could better understand what is worrying him. I want to have an exchange of ideas. The meeting will not take place now, because Philip is indisposed. We are in listening mode and want to address the difficulties that have been raised. We are ready to refine the law and make changes. There are those who have expressed genuine concerns, but I have also seen hysterical comments such as this law would put us at par with Iraq and Afghanistan. I have spoken to individuals who have raised pertinent points, and from what I gather, the biggest difficulty is defining what a news online service is. This will be refined further, since how it was worded may have given rise to concerns.

The current protection of sources for authors is being restricted to those who register. Isn’t this a threat to journalistic freedom?

It would have been a threat had we proposed what you are saying. The proposed law says that a journalist who habitually contributes to news reporting on a full-time or part-time basis will have his sources protected at law, irrespective of whether his editor decides to register or not. This means the protection of sources for journalists will always apply, independent of whether the editor is registered. If we have to widen this aspect of the law to also cover citizen journalists, by all means we are willing to debate the matter.

But the protection of sources is being linked to registration.

What we are saying is that the editor who fails to register will not have his sources protected at law. But the journalists who work for that editor will still enjoy the protection of sources, because they are not responsible for their editor’s failure to register. The experts roped in for advice said the proviso for editors was needed to encourage them to register.

In a case instituted against Daphne Caruana Galizia, the court ruled she was a journalist and so afforded the protection of sources. She is the editor and sole contributor of her blog and is not registered. How does the distinction you are making between editors and journalists work in her case, since the court has already pronounced itself on the matter?

The proposed law is written in such a way as to cater for this possibility. This is why the word ‘and’ was used. So if the journalist who habitually exercises the profession is also the editor of her own posts, her sources are also protected. If this has to be clarified further, we are willing to make the necessary changes at committee stage in Parliament.

I just want to point out one thing, though: the protection of sources at law does not mean a journalist is exempt from proving the facts of a case in court.

You are proposing the elimination of precautionary warrants of seizure for libel cases. Isn’t it ironic that you did so just days after Chris Cardona used the mechanism against Daphne Caruana Galizia?

Chris Cardona used the legal tools available to him. He took an extreme measure against an extreme person. Under the new law, the right to seek a precautionary warrant of seizure for libel cases will no longer exist, and journalists can have more peace of mind.

But isn’t it ironic that Dr Cardona used this “extreme” measure and will now be expected to vote in favour of the new law?

Chris Cardona has always supported the new rights being given to journalists by the proposed law.

To bystanders this smacks of schizophrenia.

Chris [Cardona] used an extreme measure against an extreme person. He never used such a tool against any other journalist.

Was it a mistake?

I will not comment on whether it was mistaken or not. He used an extreme measure against an extreme person.

The Bill also proposes the removal of criminal libel, but it also states that pending cases will continue being heard. Some argue that it would be a breach of human rights if the defendants in pending criminal cases were sent to jail, when this provision would have been removed under the new law.

It would be a breach of human rights if something were criminalised today and you were accused of breaking the law for something you did when the matter was not a criminal offence. But we also have the Interpretation Act, which has been in force since the late 1970s and which makes provisions for situations like the one you are raising.

The Interpretation Act has never been criticised as going against human rights. But to be super safe, we are saying that pending criminal libel cases will continue being heard, but the magistrate will not be able to hand down a jail sentence but only a fine.

Why not stop pending criminal libel proceedings outright?

A civil libel case can only be instituted up to a year after the alleged defamation has occurred. If pending criminal libel cases were dropped, it could leave those who have sought redress in this way with no other legal avenue, because the matter would be time-barred by now. This would create an injustice.

The proposed law speaks of a 21-day time window during which a preliminary hearing evaluates the possibility of mediation to avoid a court case. Shouldn’t there also be a defined time window for libel cases to ensure that they do not drag on indefinitely?

In the ideal world, libel cases are decided within a set time frame, but the problem is that people resort immediately to court cases without exploring other options. There are 129 pending civil libel cases, and each one is a mini-jury, because the facts have to be proven through witnesses and documented proof. In their own right, libel cases require multiple sittings. I wish the courts to be a measure of last resort. The preliminary hearing provision is a halfway house, because what I would like to see is a forum where complaints are dealt with even before that.

This is not in the proposed law, but in agreement with the Institute of Journalists, I would like to see some form of self-regulatory body that could give complainants redress without the need to go to court.

Why double the maximum amount of damages to €20,000?

In 1975, the amount was Lm2,000 [€4,659]. This was increased to Lm5,000 [€11,647] in 1996. After 20 years, we feel that the €20,000 limit is reasonable.

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.