Toby Mendel (centre), of the United Kingdom, addressing yesterday's media policy forum titled, 'Defamation Laws, Press Freedom and the Public Interest', at the University of the West Indies, Mona. John Maxwell, veteran journalist and social commentator, is at left while at right is Keith Sobion, director of the Norman Manley Law School, UWI, Mona. - Norman Grindley /Staff Photographer A GATHERING of local, regional and international media practitioners at a media policy forum yesterday at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, expressed mixed views about the region's defamation and libel laws.
The forum, titled, "Defamation Laws, Press Freedom and the Public Interest: Policy issues for the Caribbean", looked at previous recommendations and weighed the costs and benefits of amendments to existing laws.
The forum was organised by the Mona School of Business and the Caribbean Institute of Media and Communication (CARIMAC).
While many local practitioners are clamouring for a change to existing legislation to allow journalists more flexibility in reporting the news, some of their colleagues are urging caution.
These latest calls come against the background of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) two-day international conference marking World Press Freedom Day, which begins today at the Jamaica Conference Centre, Duke Street, downtown Kingston.
World Press Freedom Day will be observed tomorrow.
Speaking at the forum, Toby Mendel, head of the law programme at Article 19, a United Kingdom-based anti-censorship lobby group, highlighted some general principles of defamation and freedom of expression. Article 19 is of the view that "the only legitimate purpose of defamation laws is to protect reputations".
Mr. Mendel charged that these laws were used in many countries around the world to "prevent open public debate and legitimate criticism of wrongdoing by officials". He said criminal defamation laws should be removed and replaced by civil defamation laws, where possible.
Keith Sobion, Director of the Norman Manley Law School, UWI, Mona, said any changes to the existing laws should be done after an analysis of the society and its historical context. He noted that while change would encourage greater transparency and improve accountability, there was the need for quick and effective mechanisms for redress
when persons were wronged by the media.
According to local media practitioners, amendments to existing laws are long overdue. They argue that such amendments would create an environment where the press could freely "examine, report and analyse" without being burdened by "these outdated restrictions".
"There are a number of changes that I would want to see," said Oliver F. Clarke, chairman and managing director of The Gleaner Company Ltd. "For one, there is an urgent need for a wire service defence."
He explained: "Just imagine there is a newscast taking place in the United States which is being broadcast here simultaneously. We may well find that a criticism is aired which though not libellous in the US is libellous here. Under our existing laws, the cable company which airs that broadcast is not protected. Now why is that? It is impractical to expect the cable company to be able to vet everything that is coming from overseas."
DEFAMATORY STATEMENT
Under Jamaica's libel laws, a person who repeats or republishes a defamatory statement is no less guilty of libel than the person who published the original statement. This applies not only to media houses which reproduce material obtained from an outside source but also to cable network operators and rebroadcasters.
Asked whether he was optimistic that there would be changes to the existing laws, Mr. Clarke reminded that "not much has happened" since 1997 when recommendations were first put to CARICOM's legal affairs ministers by media managers in the region. The recommendations sought to have the region's defamation and libel laws amended.
Claude Robinson, a research fellow at the Mona School of Business, agreed: "The public's right to know should be the great principle over any acts of secrecy," he said. "As things stand now, the balance is tilted in favour of privacy which in itself restricts press freedom. This should not be the case. The role of the press is important for an open and democratic society."
Mr. Robinson said he fully supports the need to have persons who have been the victims of slander reasonably compensated. But, he said, the press should not be punished in a punitive manner. "There should be a balance," Mr. Robinson emphasised.
INJURY CASES
Media heads have long argued that the Defamation Act should be amended to make it mandatory for trial judges to direct jurors to take into account the level of awards in personal injury cases. As the law now stands, the jury is the sole arbiter in deciding awards in defamation cases.
However, John Maxwell, veteran journalist and social commentator, does not see anything wrong with the country's libel laws.
"The libel laws are there to protect people," he said. "We have to understand that a man's reputation is all he has. The press has no right to attempt to destroy that. Protecting a person from being libelled has to be more important than going to print."
Mr. Maxwell also suggested that the softening of defamation laws could have a disturbing effect on Jamaica's political system.
