The proposed new media and defamation law requires some improvements to meet international standards, according to the world’s largest security-oriented inter-governmental organisation
While welcoming “several positive changes”, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s media freedom representative, Harlem Désir, said that there were issues that needed to be addressed to “further align the Bill with international standards”.
An analysis of the Bill, a second draft of which is being debated in Parliament, was made by independent media freedom expert Joan Barata Mir, who noted there was only a “vague description” of the role of the proposed Media Registrar.
The draft needs to clearly state that, in matters of public interest, the defences of truth and honest opinion can be raised when the plaintiffs are not public figures but involved in matters of public interest
“Considering the importance and the sensitivity of the tasks that this body is entrusted with, a further and detailed regulation about the appointing process, decision-making processes and safeguards for citizens vis-à-vis its decisions would be needed,” she noted.
Such tasks should, in her opinion, be performed by an independent body that is “not subject to political instructions”.
The report suggests changes to the wording used in connection with the provisions on public figures and private citizens who are involved in matters of public interest.
“The wording of these provisions is still not completely satisfactory,” she said.
“The draft needs to clearly state that, in matters of public interest, the defences of truth and honest opinion can be raised when the plaintiffs are not public figures but involved in matters of public interest.”
There should be a clearer distinction between the definitions of “editor” and “publisher”, and the difference between the two roles outlined in the Bill is “difficult to understand”, because both are based on the idea of holding editorial responsibility.
Ms Barata Mir suggested removing the notion of “printed matter” and instead using the term “written media”, regardless of whether the content was distributed via online platforms or not.
The report called for a “more balanced approach” with regard to the defence of truth in defamation cases.
Ms Barata Mir also said that the courts could, in some cases, reverse the burden of proof.
In line with other European legal systems, the new law would impose on the defendant the burden to prove the allegedly libellous statements were true.
The first draft of the Bill was published last February, sparking widespread criticism, as it would have forced editors of online publications to register themselves.
A proposal to double civil libel damages and a provision that would allow pending criminal libel cases to continue also stirred controversy.
These provisions were excluded from the second draft of the Bill, a decision that, according to Ms Barata Mir, merited “a very positive assessment”.