David Perez Hansen, a journalist for the banned TV station Radio Caracas Television, protests against the removal of RCTV on Venezuelan Journalist Day in Caracas, Venezuela, in June, 2007. |
|
|
Washington –- Press freedom advocates
are expressing concern that many governments worldwide are
jailing reporters on specious charges of defaming or insulting
heads of state.
The Virginia-based World Press Freedom Committee
says that defamation of a public official remains a crime
in dozens of countries, including in several democracies,
"where legislators should know better than to allow
such poor examples to exist." The committee said countries
where defamation laws are in effect include Russia, Ethiopia,
Cambodia and Tajikistan.
The situation is particularly acute in Venezuela.
The Virginia press group said in a report released in April
that Venezuelan criminal code "reforms" that took
effect in 2005 stiffened penalties for defamation of the
country's president, attorney general, National Assembly
legislators and senior military leaders. Penalties for defamation
increased from a maximum of 30 months in prison to a new
maximum of four years’ imprisonment if the defamation
is made in a document distributed to the public.
Javier Sierra, the World Press Freedom Committee's
projects director, told USINFO that Venezuela has
"a new set of very severe criminal defamation laws
which they use very often." (See related
article.)
The laws were used, for example, to sentence
Venezuelan journalist Julio Balza in 2006 to almost three
years in prison and a fine of about $15,000 for "continuous
aggravated defamation" against a government minister
of infrastructure. Balza had criticized the minister's job
performance following a bridge collapse outside the Venezuelan
capital, Caracas.
The New York-based Committee to Protect
Journalists (CPJ), in denouncing defamation charges against
journalists in Venezuela, cited the 2005 case of Henry Crespo,
a reporter for the Caracas-based weekly Las Verdades de
Miguel. Crespo was sued by the governor of the Venezuelan
state of Guárico for "aggravated defamation"
after the reporter wrote about government corruption and
human rights violations in that state. Crespo was given
a suspended sentence of 18 months in prison.
The CPJ said that "for a Venezuelan
public official to criminally prosecute a journalist for
criticizing his conduct in office is a serious abuse of
power that sends a chilling message to all Venezuelan journalists."
NEGATIVE EFFECT ON NEWS REPORTING, FREEDOM
OF SPEECH
Thomas Melia, deputy executive director
for the independent group Freedom House, told USINFO that
"insult laws" and other provisions against press
freedom "effectively bar journalists from doing what
journalists do" in reporting the news. Such provisions,
he said, "constitute a growing problem in inhibiting
freedom of expression in many parts of the world."
Melia said "American diplomacy"
and the "assistance efforts" of nongovernmental
organizations "clearly have more to do to draw attention
to the importance" of allowing the press to criticize
heads of government and of building "legal environments"
to protect journalists.
Libel and insult laws and alleged defamation
of heads of state are issues that arise in U.S. human rights
reports each year, said Melia. American embassies should
move these issues to the top of their human rights agenda
because they involve "stifling free speech, analysis
and public discussion," Melia said.
Melia is a regular speaker at the U.S. State
Department's Foreign Service Institute, which provides training
for officers and support personnel of the U.S. foreign affairs
community.
U.S. PROTECTION FOR JOURNALISTS
A landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision
involving a civil rights case helped strengthen freedom
of the press in the United States by introducing the idea
of malice as a requirement for libel suits against public
figures.
That case (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)
involved a ruling that conformed with the free press guarantees
of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court
held that the First Amendment protects the publication of
all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public
officials, except when statements are made with "actual
malice" (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless
disregard of their truth or falsity).
Following that Supreme Court decision and
other subsequent rulings, plaintiffs in defamation cases
rarely have prevailed in the United States because of the
extremely high burden of proof needed to show a writer's
alleged malicious intentions.
Before that 1964 decision, the Supreme Court
had refused to use the First Amendment to protect the media
from libel lawsuits. These lawsuits were based on the publication
of false information that damaged a person's reputation.
Hugo Black, who joined with the other eight
Supreme Court justices in ruling in favor of the New York
Times, said the United States could "live in peace
without libel suits based on public discussions of public
affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country
can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer
physically or financially for criticizing their government,
its actions, or its officials."
See more about freedom
of the press, and the 1964 Supreme Court case in "Landmark
Decisions" on the USINFO Web site.
The full
text of the World Press Freedom Committee's report is
available on the organization's Web site.
Eric Green
USINFO Staff Writer
###