The court refused Magistrate Herrera's request for a gagging order, on the grounds that it would restrict the right to freedom of expression

Published: March 8, 2010 at 9:28pm

gag1

Di-Ve got the wrong end of the stick and is now reporting the exact opposite. (NB – Di-Ve has since corrected the report.)

So I’ll spell it out.

The magistrate and her lawyers repeatedly asked for a gagging order to stop me writing about her. The court refused, on the grounds that it would restrict my right to freedom of expression.

I can continue to write about the magistrate.

If she doesn’t like it, she can retire from public life. She cannot seriously expect to stay on as a public official – and a magistrate, no less – do as she pleases and then ask her colleagues on the magistrates’ bench to stop all criticism of her activities.

People like Consuelo Herrera (raised in the Labour mindset, I mean) just cannot understand the fundamental tenets of freedom of expression and democracy.

And above all, they are maddened by the new media. They just cannot get a handle on the internet, and how it functions completely differently to newspapers.

You can just about try to gag a newspaper columnist with an editor with an employer with a publisher with a newspaper owner.

But you can’t gag one woman with a laptop and an internet connection.

It must be SO frustrating for the tinpot despots whose survival depends on maintaining fierce control of all those wheels within wheels.




27 Comments Comment

  1. Hot Mama says:

    Yay!

  2. ciccio2010 says:

    Daphne, fully agree with your statement “If she doesn’t like it, she can retire from public life.”
    After all, it seems her private life can keep her quite busy.

  3. 123 says:

    daphne ur great!!!

  4. Black Monday says:

    In Judge Herrera’s, Anglu Fenech’s, Ronnie Pellegrini’s high times, this is the way they tried to gag a newspaper.

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091011/local/unfaded-memories-of-black-monday

    • Rover says:

      Thank you Black Monday for reminding me of the darkest days of the Labour regime. Young people today should read through that report just to understand what went on and how our lives were spent worrying about democracy in our little island. Many Maltese teenagers and 20 something were devastated by what happened on that day and we will never forget nor forgive.

    • Elephant says:

      I guess you meant Anglu Farrugia’s.

    • Il-Cop says:

      Thanks for reminding us about Black Monday. I was in England when it happened and got a running commentary on the phone from my sister. Still puts shivers down my spine. Daphne, I was a front-liner then and know exactly what police surveillance is. We had it 24/7. We used to run them bunch of boy scouts in circles. Go get them girl.

      There are many more like me who, although they don’t write, will be there if it comes to the crunch. And we won’t just be behind you but in front of you as well.

  5. Banquo says:

    When you think about it, Dr Scerri Herrera’s court action is just meant as a PR exercise.

    She did not complain about the more serious accusations made on this blog, but about the funny ones about her appearance.

    Yet, for those who just follow the developments on Super One TV, it seems as if she has a strong case.

    Her position is understandable. If she falls, her brother falls with her. And with them their entire ring of wheels within wheels within wheels.

    There is too much at stake.

    This is a test for Malta’s democracy. If we fail this test, then our country is not a real democracy, but is ruled by a circle of powerful intrigue which you, Daphne, have called the demimonde.

    • Antoine Vella says:

      Sorry, Banquo, why would Scerri Herrera’s brother fall? He has kept (as far as I know) a low profile in all this and he is not responsible for her irresponsible actions.

    • Banquo says:

      Has he really kept a low profile? Was it this Sunday that Malta Today interviewed him as an expert on some technical point of law?

      Jose Herrera runs the risk of losing credibility by association.

      If Consuleo Pilar loses face, he will lose much of his credibility. I know that this is hardly logical, but public perceptions are not based on logic.

      Jose is fully aware of this as he based his public image on sustained advertorials. Consider how many times his name is mentioned in the papers as the lawyer in particular cases. Were they all earth-shattering, landmark cases? Not in the vast majority, but as long as he is mentioned – and other lawyers who probably won more legally important cases receive no mention at all.

      So, having had so many rides on the crest, he now understands the effects of the ebb.

      That is how I see the situation.

  6. E Camilleri says:

    I bet your audience is as large as it was the first time around. Well either that or my internet connection has slowed down.

    [Daphne – 94,200 views so far today.]

    • Philip says:

      Even a gagging order would not have stopped you. And the magistrate knows it. Consie, it’s useless ”cusing” Daphne. The truth is out and it is obvious you are no longer in a position to judge anyone.
      Kindly have some decency and remove yourself.

  7. Hmmm says:

    It’s not a very clever PR exercise. Good PR doesn’t flaunt the very things it’s meant to bury.

    • Banquo says:

      You are right Hmmm… but if the woman were clever she would not have ended up in this mess in the first place.

      It is evident that Dr Scerri Herrera is panic-stricken. Who wouldn’t be in her place?

      First she behaved like a teenager, thinking she was doing it only among her innermost circle of friends. Then she decided to tell all her “friends” on Facebook about her extrajudicial activities. Not very clever, don’t you think?

      • Hmmm says:

        No, it’s not clever at all. And that’s precisely my point.

        This begs the question: why did so many people let her get away with so much for so long?

    • Banquo says:

      Qwiel Maltin:

      Iz-zejt jitla’ f’wicc l-ilma.

      Il-garra gejja u sejra, fl-ahhar tinkiser.

      Id-dnub ma jorqodx.

      Min jiftahar, jaqa’ l-bahar.

  8. Raus says:

    Here’s a case which should keep Maltstar busy for a while, but somehow I don’t think that we’ll be reading about that in the Labour media any time soon:

    http://www.maltarightnow.com/?module=news&at=Kunsillier+Laburista+l%2DQorti+fuq+frodi&t=a&aid=99819091&cid=19

  9. Bonny says:

    Daphne, I was reliably informed that – ironically – your case of today was heard in the exact same chamber where your “schools crisis” case was heard in 1984.

    That should give you enough impetus to forge on and stand up for your rights, Daphne – not that you need telling to do so.

    Some people simply do not understand the right to freedom of speech.

    [Daphne – Another delicious irony: the magistrate who started hearing that case was Consuelo’s good friend Lino Farrugia Sacco. His clerk took cash from us right beneath his nose, as a ‘fee’ – a la 1984.]

    • erskinemay says:

      A fee for what?

      • Mini-Tiananmen square says:

        Yea, a fee for what?

        [Daphne – It wasn’t a fee, but extortion, and right under Farrugia Sacco’s nose. There were 11 ‘imputati’ and he took Lm3 off each of us: more than a week’s wage 26 years ago.]

  10. Borromini says:

    94,200 views today; simply amazing.
    I mean you are amazing Daphne

  11. Dazzled by Maltastar says:

    In their report of what must have been a day in court, Maltastar had only this of relevant news value to say:

    “During her evidence on Monday, Magistrate Scerri Herrera denied the allegations on Ms Caruana Galizia’s blog. Such allegations included the use of drugs in parties organised by the magistrate. The magistrate claimed that the gossip columnist called her a ‘liar’ and slanderous comments after she left the court.”

    So the substance of the allegations included only “the use of drugs in parties organised by the magistrate?” Where are all the others? In fact, most of the others quoted by the magistrate are, in my view, not “defamatory allegations” but at most “opinions” of the writer.

    And what do they mean “gossip columnist?” Why would gossip worry those at One so much? Why would the President of the Republic call a meeting of the CAJ over mere gossip?

    [Daphne – Gossip columnist is what the new Maltastar/Super One/Labour/Media Today are calling me now. They think it’s going to undermine me.]

  12. Lino Cert says:

    Daphne you are a legend

  13. Guzeppi says:

    For people who do not read your blog – and get it all from say TVM – it seems she’s on top. And the one beneath is not Robert.
    I think she’s careful not to claim you defamed her for writing things that would –in the process – expose her more than the miniskirt did.
    It’s a mind game now. But I’m sure you’re up to it.

  14. Jo says:

    I echo what most are writing on the blog – you’re great Daphne! Are there any real journalists left in Malta? Wheels within wheels: we have come to a very sorry state in this island of ours. Where is our Hercules to clean up our “stables”?

  15. Joseph Micallef says:

    If it wasn’t blatantly obvious, a question would be begging!

    Why is the magistrate so troubled with the pictures she herself made public?

  16. Tudor Kaye says:

    Oh no second class journalists will never tackle such a hot potato like this. They’re just cowards.

Leave a Comment