An advertising and PR agency acted in the most bizarre manner towards a local newspaper over the past week, when it requested a deposit to ensure that an interview conducted with a representative of Smart City appeared in the 'approved' format.

What prompted the agency to make such a request is a matter only it can seek to explain, and Smart City did well to clarify that it played no part in this. But perhaps more worrying is that we are living in a climate where people feel they are able to treat the press in this manner.

Disrespect for freedom of speech no doubt plays a part. But so do our libel laws and the manner in which they are interpreted.

Last February, The Sunday Times carried out an interview with the then opposition leader in the run-up to the March general election. He alleged, among other things, that certain people - including Cabinet members - were corrupt.

Naturally, the newspaper intended to faithfully report this. But there was a problem: By doing so, it was leaving itself exposed to a libel suit from the people the opposition leader had implicated. Had it not carried the report, the Labour leader could have justifiably accused The Sunday Times of censorship.

After considering the predicament, our stand on the matter was unequivocal. We would rather be sued in pursuit of free speech. After all, the statements were made on the record by a high profile person. To us, it was a matter of public interest that they be published.

We are quite convinced that the large majority of right-minded people would agree with us. The problem, however, is that our courts would probably not.

One, because of the highly restrictive - rather, dangerous - nature of the so-called Press Act which governs the law of libel. This contains many provisions that require urgent review. Among them is one stating that the only circumstances under which a newspaper can be exempt are if the comments were made during a speech at an important public event, whatever that means.

Two, because of the narrow manner in which our courts seem to interpret libel. The Times lost a case last January after reporting that a magistrate had, in open court, declared a lawyer to be in contempt for failing to appear. A police inspector testified that he had also heard this remark.

Yet the Constitutional Court concluded that since there was no mention of contempt in the official records, what the reporter and inspector heard did not really happen.

Moreover, it held that if a journalist publishes a finding as a fact, he must be able to prove it is true. This statement is not contentious when taken in isolation. But severe difficulties arise when one sees the standard our laws and courts are insisting upon to achieve this. In this case, the court was of the opinion that the journalist should have dug further.

Ironically, however, even truth is not a complete defence under the Press Act, since the court can still insist that the published material, however true, must also be of public benefit. And, of course, it is for magistrates and judges to determine what that is.

So even after scaling the first high hurdle imposed by the court, a newspaper can still fall at the second - and be liable not just to damages but, absurdly, also to prosecution.

This state of affairs is as big a threat to freedom of speech as the PR agency's actions and, if possible, even more bizarre.