0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
15 vues1 page
If academics had had the freedom of expression during the rise of nazism, it would have probably been snuffed out and we wouldn't have had the war. One of the reasons we have the European Convention on Human Rights is that it was the Internet. The law on defamation here is based on the law that we had in England in the 1950s. It certainly pre-dates the new forms of media.
Description originale:
Titre original
The Sun 2008-07-24: eXtra: Freer press equals greater transparency (part 2)
If academics had had the freedom of expression during the rise of nazism, it would have probably been snuffed out and we wouldn't have had the war. One of the reasons we have the European Convention on Human Rights is that it was the Internet. The law on defamation here is based on the law that we had in England in the 1950s. It certainly pre-dates the new forms of media.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
If academics had had the freedom of expression during the rise of nazism, it would have probably been snuffed out and we wouldn't have had the war. One of the reasons we have the European Convention on Human Rights is that it was the Internet. The law on defamation here is based on the law that we had in England in the 1950s. It certainly pre-dates the new forms of media.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
be a little bit more fly-by-night. be either jailed or stigmatised with criminal
sanctions for what they write, what they So you’re more in favour of the think, or what they believe. You can be traditional media (print) than online brought to account in a civil court. You can media? be brought to apologise and correct errors I support the traditional media but only in and defamation. That is accepted and it a society which has an open and diverse is felt that in modern society that is the media – broadly owned. I mean we’ve appropriate response. seen the problem around the world with Perhaps it is helpful to explain what Rupert Murdoch owning too much media, I mean by customary international law from television to print, in a number of because it’s not something which is countries. We’ve seen it in other totalitarian taught in law schools. Judges, very often regimes where all of the media is owned because it’s not taught in law schools, also by the state, for example. We’ve seen it don’t have much experience in dealing in countries which attempt to muzzle with it. There are three ways in which dissident views, like China or Saudi Arabia. we make international laws. The first is Both of these are not conducive to the that countries make treaties with other development of a harmonious society. I countries – they can be bilateral law or personally believe that one of the ways in multilateral. So many members of the which to deal with disharmony in society United Nations sign the International is to allow people to vent their opinions, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and if they’re allowed to give voice to and Article 19 of that covenant guarantees their opinions, then they will not resort to freedom of expression. violence. Malaysia is a signatory to that covenant. And indeed one of the reasons we have We also have statements of law and good the European Convention on Human practice issued by inter-governmental Rights is that it was recognised by those bodies like the World Bank and develop- who lived through the Second World War ment banks around the world. We get them that if there had been this plurality of from UN bodies as well, but none of these media, if academics had had the freedom statements are binding in national law of expression during the rise of Nazism, it unless they are adopted by local legislation would have probably been snuffed out and or in some way the government says “we we wouldn’t have had the war. So that’s will abide by this particular standard”. why Europe decided to guarantee free Merely (setting) a standard to which expression and the same holds throughout they aspire to is insufficient. There are the world. That’s one of the reasons we some standards which become universal value freedom of expression so highly in because so many people in so many countries of the world where there is a countries have agreed to a basic minimum guarantee of free speech. standard. It crystallises into what we call customary international law and there Has the Malaysian media arrived at is now such a body of law. So many that stage of freedom of expression countries have signed up to Article 19 or and speech? its equivalent in the European Convention I don’t think so. For example the law on or the Inter-American Convention on defamation here is based on the law that Human Rights, that it becomes a universal we had in England in the 1950s. It’s sort standard and applies to us because we are of based on pre-independence. It certainly members of planet Earth, not because we pre-dates the new forms of media ... are members of a nation. And at that point, everything from tape recording through to One of the reasons we have the European Conven- the internet. tion on Human Rights is that it was Defamation is not recognised by those who lived through the Second really catered for World War that if there had been this plurality of media, by the laws. I mean if academics had had the freedom of expression during judges have done their best to adapt the rise of Nazism, it would have probably been snuffed the old laws, but out and we wouldn’t have had the war.” every country in the world, virtually, has recognised the need to it becomes part of the domestic law of every reform the laws on defamation in light of state and so customary international law the modern media age. is part of Malaysian law, just as it is part of As a consequence of the fact that we the law in the UK or Saudi Arabia. have a global media, that we live in a global information society, it is critical that Are we far behind in abiding by we see that the laws on information and customary international law? defamation in Malaysia are brought up to That’s a very good question! The answer date and in harmony and compliance with is that it varies, depending on what you’re international law. The international treaty looking at. There’s no doubt that Malaysia to which Malaysia is a proud signatory and Malaysian standards are changing. should help iron out some of the tensions We look at responsible journalism as a perceived by observers of Malaysia and defence – the so called Reynold’s Defence indeed Malaysia’s own media and lawyers. – which has been pleaded on a number of occasions in Malaysia. It’s been accepted So we need to review our laws to keep that decisions of the House of Lords on this up with the times? subject are good and I think rightly so, as is Yes, that’s right. I mean many of the laws the case with many other Commonwealth – the law on sedition for example – is an countries. old colonial law of repression imposed by I observe a pressure, a modernising the colonial power, the British. And it’s not influence within the Malaysian society appropriate in a modern society and most to encourage a more open approach to countries of the world have thrown off media, an ability to criticise public figures the shackles of those kinds of law. And it’s more than has perhaps been customarily important for Malaysia to do the same. accepted as appropriate. And that, I think, is partly cultural and partly a natural Get rid of it altogether? conservatism within society and the legal Yes … there’s no country in the world now profession, and every country has that ... no civilised country that believes that same sort of conservatism. I see that change anyone should go to jail for something occurring and a pressure for that change in they say and this is true internationally. Malaysia and I welcome it. It’s a good thing For example, France has removed the for Malaysia and I think Malaysians would possibility of criminal libel so that you welcome it. can only be fined for what you say, and also many countries – Sri Lanka, Japan, So the pressure should be kept up? India – have revoked their old criminal Certainly. I think Malaysia will feel the libel laws. Britain itself has given a pressure from outside – the international parliamentary undertaking that the law, community, particularly through the UN although still technically in the statute (which) will look to Malaysia to ensure books, will never be used – and it hasn’t that it raises its game in terms of free been. expression. I expect that the next time It is important to understand that Malaysia is asked to make a country report the days when people faced criminal to the UN on the state of human rights, and sanctions for writing and speaking should particularly on freedom of expression in be set to one side. No country in the world Malaysia, it will be asked some fairly sharp practising international law – customary and pointed questions about some of its international law – believes or says that journalists, newspapers or writers should » Turn to Page 15