The air is thick with insults, both real and perceived. First we had Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo asking Speaker Louis Galea to investigate and take action over Tony Zarb's "traitors" comments. Such comments, Arrigo harrumphed, could amount to contempt of Parliament. Presumably, Galea will dream up a sufficiently severe punishment to dole out to Zarb for insulting those delicate flowers - the MPs who voted in favour of hiking up utility tariffs.

In another show of touchiness, The Malta Independent columnist Stephen Calleja went squealing away to the Institute of Maltese Journalists asking it to issue a press release condemning the actions of MUT president John Bencini. Bencini's offence? Mentioning Calleja in a speech during the protest.

I find it hard to see why Calleja got so upset. Reading through his various columns and articles, I note that besides his embarrassingly autobiographical pieces (his toe-curling description of his battle with the bulge, how he would like to live next to Julia Roberts, how he hates being called qalbi) Calleja has an obsessive interest with writing articles which depict the teachers' union in a less than flattering light.

So, I don't see why he resents the attention he has so persistently courted from the targets of his criticism. As it is, he got his 15 minutes of fame and a lot more attention than he deserved, including a silly editorial where the crowd at the protest was described as "bloodthirsty".

But besides these examples of hypersensitivity to comment or mention, there are other instances where comments or description may veer on the defamatory and cruel. Gossip may be disguised as commentary, and half-truths may be published with the public's right to know being cited as a reason for the publication. Satire, caricatures and cartoons may be deemed justly critical by some, but needlessly offensive by others.

The problem which keeps on cropping up is where to draw the line between the right to freedom of expression, and defamation? Is the right to insult protected by law? What kind of expression is conducive to a democratic debate, and which is an infringement of a third party's right to privacy?

The discussion is, and will remain, topical, as there will always be tensions between journalists, reporters, columnists and news providers who want to break news (for legitimate or other purposes), and public figures, personalities, and institutions who do not relish having details of their actions, decisions or private lives disclosed. It is also an important debate as the right to freedom of expression can be said to be the one of the most fundamental of human rights - one from which many other rights emanate.

In order for citizens to be adequately informed about the policies and actions of politicians and to be able to criticise or approve them, the right to freedom of speech should not be restricted.

Voting, inter-election protests, or criticism are all forms of expression - their disproportionate limitation would result in oppressive rule. That is why courts in democratic countries tend to protect freedom of expression in various forms - sometimes even if it consists of obscene or offensive material.

Prohibiting even the most outrageous manifestations of expression is considered to be dangerous as it could stifle open debate and the stimulation of new ideas. So, for example, in the case of Kunstler vs Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that the portrayal of a prominent politician in a collage of 34 public figures who were all portrayed naked and involved in sexual activities, deserved protection.

This was the case even though the dissenting judges described the collage as "senseless", containing "disgusting images", with "repulsive sexual poses, some even involving violence". According to the court, satire is to be considered a form of artistic expression and social comment which, by exaggerating and distorting reality, is intentionally provocative.

However, the ECHR has on occasion found that certain expression went beyond what was tolerable in political debate. In the controversial Lindon vs France case, the author and publisher of a book entitled Jean-Marie Le Pen on Trial were found to have printed defamatory passages about the far-right politician Le Pen. These included a reference to Le Pen as a "vampire" who thrived on the "bitterness of his electorate, but sometimes also on their blood, like the blood of his enemies", and that he was a liar who used defamation against his opponents to deflect accusations away from himself.

The court noted that even though the limits of acceptable criticism were wider as regards a politician such as Le Pen, the descriptions of him "oversteps the permissible limits in such matters".

The publication of unsubstantiated allegations is not afforded protection. In the case of Alithia vs Cyprus, a series of articles alleging that a former defence minister was corrupt, was published. He was portrayed as an unscrupulous criminal driven purely by self-interest.

The ECHR concluded that the publishers had not sufficiently proven their primarily factual allegations, that they had acted maliciously and blatantly disregarded the principles of responsible journalism, so their action was not deserving of protection.

This emphasis on responsible journalism was also made in the case of Flux vs Moldova where the ECHR made it clear that the right to freedom of expression cannot be taken to confer on newspapers an absolute right to act in an irresponsible manner by charging individuals with criminal acts in the absence of a basis of fact, and without offering them the possibility to counter the accusations.

From these and other cases, it is clear that the courts afford wide protection for even the most shocking or unpleasant expressions as long as they are based on fact. Gratuitous insult, however, is not condoned. Which is as it should be.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt