Debate on the rights of dead people dominate media bill discussion

A committee discussion on the Media and Defamation bill yesterday hit a snag over a clause which would allow people to claim defamation against a dead relative.

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi proposed that a relative should prove prima facie to a court where an ancestor’s reputation has been defamed – a proposal which the Justice Minister Owen Bonnici described as “interesting”.

But PN MP Karol Aquilinia, who initially insisted that the right to sue for defamation against the dead should have no time limit, objected to the right to sue being limited to ten years after the person’s death.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici, who is piloting the Bill, said that the amendment shouldn’t be “too much against freedom of expression” and said that the limit was also demanded by the Organisation of Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The reasoning behind the time limit, according to Bonnici, was that because after a certain time, the person becomes a ‘national figure’. “Take Churchill for instance, and all the books written about him. Such a law would allow anyone, at any point in time, to open a libel case.”

Aquilina was not on board with the idea that anything could be said about a dead person without consequences after ten years.

Yesterday, it also appeared that the members had different copies of the bill and amendments which also occasionally stalled the meeting, leading PN MP Therese Comodini Cachia to ask for a Bill with the amendments to be provided. “We are amending upon amendments, and we have three different versions of amendments, and two versions of the Bill.”

More time was spent discussing the definition for ‘editor’ – as concerns were raised in regards to non-traditional forms of media.

Read more: Media Bill debate in Parliament gets lost in translation

Here, the AG admitted that regulations need to pass from parliament in order for an operator to be held responsible for what is uploaded by third parties.

He explained that the Electronic Commerce Act does not consider internet providers, for instance, to be responsible for what is published – so long as they do not ignore the content once they are informed of its illegality. “The groundwork for this is still being laid, and it is not regulated in detail in this Bill.”

For the first time ever, the Bill will be introducing the concept of libelous statements which are spoken and not just published, Bonnici said.

The penalty for such an offence would amount to up to €5,000, and the procedure initiated by those who think they have been defamed through spoken word would be a civil one and not a criminal case opened by the accuser.

Discussion on whether the words ‘actual’ and ‘real’ are synonymous or not also ensued, as well as their respective Maltese translations.

A reform put forward by the new Bill would, while allowing one to file an unlimited amount of libel cases, not permit damages to exceed €11,640. Bonnici described this as the ‘anti-SLAPP’ reform.

But Aquilina raised the concern that the accused would nonetheless have expenses of all the libel cases against him, which oftentimes exceed more than the damages. “If this is being put forward, then expenses need to be regulated as well.”

The committee agreed to continue discussing the Bill on 9 April.