One of the things Unspun misses living in Indonesia is the erudition of the English judges. This is a bad colonial hangover in the land where Unspun grew up. Unspun‘s formative years were spent following the pursuits of Rumpole of the Bailey and, when Unspun felt particularly in need of being in awe of a brilliant mind, Lord Demming.
So it was great to see some erudition and good judgement coming together in the Law Lords’ decision on libel suits in the case of Abdul Jameel vs The Wall Street Journal, as reported in The New York Times. Their decision now gives journalists the right to publish allegations about public figures so long as their reporting is responsible and in the public interest.
Unspun found the written judgement of one Law Lord, Richard Scott, particularly tenchant about journalists having the right to be critical of government:
“It is no part the duty of the press to cooperate with any government, let alone foreign governments, whether friendly or not, in order to keep from the public information of public interest teh disclosure of which cannot be said to be damaging to national interests.”
Governments, particularly authorative ones in neighboring countries who think that journalists should do their work for them, please take note.
In the meantime, I’ve always wondered why Indonesia has a Press Law rather than libel laws to govern what journalists right. It makes every libel case a crime rather than a tort. Are there any legal eagles out there who can enlighten us?
reminds me of a book, here. Very interesting.
as for the Press Law, the same is in several countries (i can get back withe the list later when i’m back home if you’re so inclined). Nono (Makarim) held a discussion some while ago with all the press buff on this subject and i came home with 800+ pages material. maybe it’s time i actually read it.
to my knowledge, this has a lot to do with the fact that libel/defamation in Soeharto days were totally useless (mainly for the use of the power that be) and the press were heavily regulated anyway using the Ministrial arm. After the press was deregulated, some laws are necessary and thus the need for a new law. Many from the press prefer something outside the realm of the penal code (for its old tarnished interpretation by the Soeharto regime), and thus empowering the Press Law as Lex Specialis.
If you’re so really needing this and i really have nothing to do, i will start chewing those 800 pages and get back to you later in December
okay, i’m back, just to clarify a bit since i think i understood the question wrong earlier.
First of all, I’m not sure what you refer to as the libel laws. Generally, Defamation (libel AND slander) the authorities have long refer to the existing Penal Code with the relevant articles (insult clauses, hate-sowing, public official, etc). This code was drafted in the Colonial days by the Dutch to control the local. That being said, these articles have been abused haphazardly during the first 50 years of the republic and in fact provided the regulatory framework to control the press.
After the dissolve of the Info Ministry back then, the press reacted swiftly and start putting together the Press Law with the hope to break free from this old clutch. There’s a lot of lobbying and debating about whether the Press Law is supposed to function as lex specialis to the Penal code. The press hawk argues heavily that the Press Law includes sufficient mechanism to deal with defamation and thus all cases pertaining to the press should be prosecuted using this law. All is good and done there, generally, using the Penal Code is much too harsh and very much contrary to the spirit of free press (this is a repeated call everywhere from the HR comittee to the SC US, etc.) Having the Press Law separatedly supposedly will help and protect member of the press.
That being said, the existing Press Law is nowhere near sufficient and many legal experts out there can point out that it will not be enough to replace everything. It does not at all mention defamation, it has none to do with publishing state secrets etc and has very little in terms of guidance for the state (in most jurisdiction the state can not file complaints using the libel – whatever laws available.
this is long enough already, i’m not sure you’re even interested. well, drop me a note if you need more.
have a good day.