An appeals court has confirmed a decision rejecting libel complaints filed by far-right activist Norman Lowell against MaltaToday managing editor Saviour Balzan and editor Matthew Vella. 

Mr Lowell had taken exception to three reports published by the newspaper in May 2006 which had hinted at a possible link between a series of arson attacks against journalists and charities and activists of the far-right movement. 

Mr Lowell had insisted that the articles had been based on falsehoods aimed at damaging his reputation.

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale had declared that the articles were based on facts in view of Mr Lowell's regular comments on the media which were not in any way acceptable in a democratic society, where diversity and multiculturalism formed the foundations of Maltese society.

As a political person, Mr Lowell was subject to higher levels of public scrutiny and criticism, the first court had concluded.

In his appeal, Mr Lowell had argued that the first court had not assessed the articles properly, insisting that these did not constitute fair comment and that the court had been prejudiced against him.  

The court of appeal, presided by Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, threw out Mr Lowell's arguments declaring that use of the term 'neo-nazi' was appropriate since Mr Lowell had never denied his lack of tolerance towards immigrants reaching Malta.

“In the opinion of the court, the only message a reasonable reader would receive from the applicant is one of racism, xenophobia and hatred. In the circumstances, that he is described as a neo-Nazi cannot be taken to be defamatory.” 

Regarding Mr Lowell's objection to being linked to an arson attack on columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who had also taken a stand against his extremist rhetoric, the court noted that “one does not need to be a professor to understand the applicant's message. He first utters threats and words of intimidation and then expects the media to handle him with silk gloves. This is clearly a case of someone trying to avoid blame for something he has done."

Freedom of speech did not entail the right to lie, spread malicious gossip or utter hate speech, the court remarked.

"When people speak out of turn, good journalism should be there to set the record straight for all ”concluded the court citing a European juridical sources.

The court dismissed the appeal, ordering Mr Lowell to also bear the costs of the case.

Lawyer Veronique Dalli was counsel to the editors.