(FLIP/IFEX) – The following is a 24 August 2005 FLIP press release: Journalists concerned by bill to increase penalties for insult and defamation offences FLIP is concerned about the introduction of a bill to increase the penalties for crimes of insult and defamation committed by editors and producers, journalists, columnists and media outlets in the […]
(FLIP/IFEX) – The following is a 24 August 2005 FLIP press release:
Journalists concerned by bill to increase penalties for insult and defamation offences
FLIP is concerned about the introduction of a bill to increase the penalties for crimes of insult and defamation committed by editors and producers, journalists, columnists and media outlets in the course of carrying out their activities.
On 9 August 2005, Senator Juan Gómez Martínez introduced Bill 53 of 2005, which would add a new article to section V of Law 599 of 2000 (Criminal Code). This bill is identical to the one he had introduced in September 2003, which was withdrawn before it could be passed.
Under the bill, any director, journalist, social commentator, chronicler, columnist, feature writer or media outlet deemed to have published a “groundless insult, defamatory statement or contested evidence attacking any individual’s dignity, good name, reputation, morals, private life or family” would be guilty of a criminal offence.
The proposed norms already exist in Articles 220 and 221 of the Criminal Code, which indicates that this bill is aimed directly at restricting journalists’ activities.
FLIP believes that no law should be allowed that would result in the loss of free expression by giving higher priority to other rights, such as the right to privacy or honour. Nor can disproportionate sanctions be established that would lead to the inhibition of journalists’ activities.
As well, vague and imprecise terms used in the bill, such as “morals” or “reputation” may restrict the ability of the media to keep a critical eye on the activities of public servants.
According to the “Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights”, “privacy laws should not inhibit or restrict investigation and dissemination of information of public interest. The protection of a person’s reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions in those cases in which the person offended is a public official, a public person or a private person who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest (. . .)”
FLIP will continue to closely monitor the debate on this bill before Congress, to prevent it from being passed as currently worded, which would infringe upon the rights to freedom of information and opinion in Colombia.
