Dear Editor,
So many lawsuits are filed against the media. Is the intention of the lawsuits to shut down the media and or to stop them from exposing wrongdoings or to grovel and cower in fear? I support absolute freedom of the press but not freedom to attack people with malice and hate.
I don’t claim or pretend to know the law on media defamation lawsuits in Guyana. But I read and studied freedom of press lawsuits in the US – required in doctoral studies in political science and in Educational Administration. Most of the lawsuits filed in Guyana and awarded damages would be considered as frivolous and thrown out of the court. In fact, the filers (plaintiffs) who claim defamation would find themselves paying court costs. Proving defamation in the US is very difficult.
The media in the US and in developed democratic countries as well as in India allow wide latitude of freedom of the press. In particular, hardly any restrictions are placed on the media by the court when commenting or reporting or allowing views on or about politicians. Plaintiffs tend to lose most of their cases against the press for defamation. If won at lower courts, judgments are often overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court leans towards protecting free speech by the media especially against public officials and overturned several lower court rulings. The court often stated that free speech helps to hold public officials accountable and to govern in the public interest. The public interest overrides all other interests even when an individual’s feelings or reputation is hurt or damaged.
In the US, defamation is very hard to prove. Those claiming defamation (libel) must prove malice and intent to defame and that the defendant knows ahead of publication that the information to be published is/was false. The latter element or condition is hard to prove. There is no way the media would know that the views expressed in a letter or op ed commentary are false. And why shouldn’t the public have a right to critique or comment on their government’s or representative’s policy? How else would government or politicians know about public’s view of them?
In a claim of defamation, one must also prove intent to ‘ridicule’ and loss of income. How can a claimant claim he or she suffered a loss of income if a person is unemployable or suffers no financial losses?
A lawsuit must prove serious harm — that the person commented on would suffer serious ridicule and loss of income. This in itself can bar a libel defamation suit. How would one prove loss of income if one were a President of a country who is receiving a sizeable pension and who was collecting an army pension before becoming President? If one would not be employed, how would one lose income from public ridicule?
The courts in Guyana should grant the press wide latitude to publish views, editorials, satire, sarcasms, ridiculing policies and politicians. The media should be allowed to criticize public officials all towards the objective of holding the latter accountable.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
