F RE ED O M O F EX P R E SSIO N, M EDIA LA W A ND DEFAMATION
23
Every case of imprisonment of a media professional is an unacceptable hindrance to freedom of expression and entails that, despite the fact that their work is in the public interest, journalists have a sword of Damocles hanging over them. The whole of society suffers the consequences when journalists are gagged by pressure of this kind… The Assembly consequently takes the view that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay. In particular it exhorts states whose laws still provide for prison sentences – although prison sentences are not actually imposed – to abolish them without delay so as not to give any excuse, however unjustified, to those countries which continue to impose them, thus provoking a corrosion of fundamental freedoms.24 The danger with criminal defamation – and one of the many reasons why defamation should be a purely civil matter – is that the involvement of the state in prosecuting alleged defamers shifts the matter very quickly into the punishment of dissent. At the least it gives additional and excessive protection to officials and government. We will return to this issue later.
Civil defamation There is broad agreement that some sort of remedy should be available for those who believe that their reputation has been unfairly undermined. This should take the form of a civil suit by the person who claims their damaged reputation. But even given this consensus, the actual practice of defamation law throws up a number of potential issues.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1577 (2007), “Towards decriminalization of defamation.”
24