This really calls for some satire in itself
So it turns out that there is no law banning political satire in carnival parades in Malta, after all. It’s just that nobody bothered to check the truth of the urban legend.
When you think about it, it should have been obvious. How can you have a law banning political satire wherever? Any such law would be in head-on conflict with the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. And while we took this kind of oppression for granted before 1987, we have not done so since.
It’s not only amazing that nobody bothered to check the law, but over and above that, that nobody sought to challenge that ‘law’, in the process of which they would have found that it doesn’t exist.
This puts me in mind of the ‘sub judice’ ban self-imposed by the press. For years I was told by a procession of editors and journalists that we can’t discuss ongoing court cases in print – why, The Times even had a policy, when I started working, of only reporting the first hearing of a case and its conclusion, and nothing in between – because of the ‘sub judice’ rule.
Then I discovered that there is no such thing, that it was a British habit, not anchored in law, that had in fact been challenged by The Sunday Times (London) in the ‘Thalidomide’ case, at the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in a landmark judgement that it was the DUTY of the press to discuss ongoing legal disputes and cases in court. This was in the 1970s.
Yet there are still some among us who talk about ‘sub judice’.
4 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,816538,00.html
On the other hand whist something is sub-judice the press should not become the judge and jury, so the discussion in the press should remain on the facts, avoiding comments and assumptions.
[Daphne – That’s a value judgement. The law is something else. The law allows you to speculate. Whether it’s nice to do so is something else.]
The Sunday Times case judgement has certainly changed radically the sub judice concept. However this concept was and can still be considered to be part of UK and similar legal systems (common law) and also part of our law.
The European Court in the Sunday Times case decided in favour of freedom of expression and so reporting and comments on court cases are welcome and desirable and do not fall foul of the law.
On the other hand the sub judice rule still exists in the context of contempt of court rules. Contempt of law still exists as an offence in common law and Maltese law. Therefore misleading press reports may now still be found to be in contempt of court. In 2009 Irish broadcaster RTE was found to have breached the sub judice rule as it carried a report that could have prejudiced a trial.
[Daphne – No, David, you have it wrong. Contempt of court with respect to publication is VERY SPECIFIC, and almost always deals with a direct trangression against an express order – e.g. the court rules that the testimony of witness X should not be published, and a newspaper publishes it anyway. That is contempt of court.]
With regards to the ‘urban legend’ making political satire ‘illegal’. I assume that every urban legend is founded on an element of truth.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Carnival Board vet the subject of all the floats taking part and gives its go ahead prior to the start of construction? What happens if the Board refuses to grant the permit on grounds of ‘injurious content’? What happens if a permit is granted, the politician feels aggrieved, and sues in court for slander?
Wouldn’t this be tantamount to political censure?