(WPFC/IFEX) – The following is a 28 April 2000 statement by the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, of which WPFC is a member: COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS COMMONWEALTH PRESS UNION INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE PERIODICAL PRESS INTERNATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE NORTH AMERICAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION WORLD ASSOCIATION OF […]
(WPFC/IFEX) – The following is a 28 April 2000 statement by the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, of which WPFC is a member:
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS
COMMONWEALTH PRESS UNION
INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE PERIODICAL PRESS
INTERNATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE
NORTH AMERICAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM COMMITTEE
Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations Denounces Insult Laws
The Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, meeting in Boston April 28, 2000, reaffirmed the deep conviction of its member groups that “insult laws” providing special protection to governmental authorities, official institutions, states and their symbols are wholly inappropriate in all countries, but especially in those that call themselves democracies.
The Committee welcomed the publication of “Insult Laws — An Insult to Press Freedom” — a study of such laws and how they are applied in more than 90 countries and territories. That study demonstrates compellingly how such laws, including desacato laws in Latin America and laws on criminal defamation, are invoked to stifle free speech and press freedom in all regions of the world. It also convincingly demonstrates that the continued existence of such anachronistic legal texts on the statute books of the traditional democracies serves as a standing invitation to authoritarian governments — even though the democracies treat these laws as obsolete and no longer use them.
The Committee therefore calls upon governments everywhere to repeal such laws.
Reasonable defense against alleged instances of defamation can be adequately provided under civil laws providing for those who consider themselves unjustly portrayed to seek demonstrable damages. There must be no punitive damages or imprisonment for the exercise of freedom of expression.
In a healthy working democracy, government leaders and other public figures are afforded less — not more — protection from reporting and criticism. This is a necessary condition for the informed exercise of public opinion in any country.
28 April 2000
Boston, Mass
