Several journalistic incidents that have occurred in recent years have left a big question mark over where the line is drawn in relation to freedom of the press in the UAE.
In June 2005, a female reporter for a prominent daily English newspaper was on her way to Greece when she was stopped at the airport and informed that there was a warrant for her arrest. The warrant was prompted by an article she had written earlier in February about a man who was reportedly slashing women in the Emirate of Sharjah. The police said a victim had raised a complaint against the reporter but it soon became clear it was the Sharjah police who were piqued, later contending that her article may have helped the attacker escape by alerting him to their investigation.
Shortly after that incident, a new men's magazine had its license revoked by Dubai Media City following an issue of the magazine that featured what the authorities deemed a “risqué” centerfold fashion shoot. More recently, two UAE national journalists were each fined the equivalent of US$5,500 following charges of libel made against them for criticising a decision made by the Ministry of Education.
Other incidents include a freelance reporter being called in by the Dubai Police to give a statement in relation to criminal charges filed against him for writing an article about a murder and naming the building in which it occurred. The owners of the building sought to take action against the journalist for defaming the building and suggesting that it is “unsafe” to live there, and against the newspaper for publishing a photograph of the building with the article.
Then there’s the case of a UAE telephone company blocking access to several Internet blogs, including the temporary block imposed on the Web site of The New York Times for an entire day (which was later lifted following numerous complaints). It is common knowledge to all UAE residents that there are various Internet sites that are blocked for inappropriate content including, in the most famous case photo-sharing site Flickr. There is speculation that Youtube will be next on the black-list.
Although the female journalist was released within hours of being detained, and the freelance reporter had the case against him dismissed, these incidents raise a concern about the rights of journalists and how well protected they are in carrying out their work. How does the UAE law on defamation link into the concept of freedom of speech?
What is defamation? Defamation is basically where someone says or publishes false and malicious statements about a third party – individual, corporate entity or otherwise. It can come in various forms but the term encompasses slander (which is defamation that you hear, usually in the form of someone spreading or repeating lies and unfounded rumours, e.g. office gossip) and libel (which is defamation that you see, usually in the form of something in print or on TV). The basic point in all defamation is that injury to the reputation or character of someone (or something) results from the false and untrue statements or actions of another. It is a false attack on your good name.
Defamation law is an attempt to balance a right to protect a reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Put bluntly, defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious statements.
The defence. When a claim of defamation comes up, most people focus on whether what has been said, published or broadcast is defamatory, but there is a far easier place to start. The most important question is whether or not the person making the statement is free to have made the statement, as defamation laws differ from country to country.
Wherever the location, though, most defamation laws set out at least three main types of defence:
1. That what was said was true. If the statements are true, no matter what the statements were, there is no case of defamation;
2. That one is expressing an opinion. In other words, if one is expressing an opinion
for example about a film or a restaurant then
one may be protected by the defence of
“fair comment;”
3. That the statement is privileged (i.e. not public). But this really relates to statements between clients and certain professionals (e.g. doctors and lawyers) and certain categories of individuals (and the main one here is one’s husband or wife). As soon as the communication is made to any non-privileged party, the privilege is broken.
What can happen in cases of defamation? The main thing that can happen is that a defamation suit can be threatened, i.e. a letter is sent saying that unless an apology is given or usually a large sum of money paid, a legal action will be launched. The first thing to consider in such an event is whether any of the defences apply. The most obvious one is whether the statements that were made are true; truth is the single most effective defence.
If the remark is truthful, even if it “hurts,” is embarrassing, or subjects one to ridicule, there is really little one can do. So if you are about to make a statement, make sure what you say is true and can be backed up by evidence.
Getting the balance right. One of the duties of a free press is to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Too often, defamation actions and threats to sue for defamation are used in an attempt to silence those who make commentary on others, the “victims” possessing influence, money and power. We all have a responsibility to ensure that what we say and write about others is true. If that happens, then maybe the balance between defamation law and free speech will be maintained.
So how do such incidents translate in a country that is trying to set itself apart in the region as an oasis of freedom and flexibility?
The Ministry of Information is responsible for licensing publications and, although it has a censorship department of its own to monitor imported news media like magazines and newspapers, as well as Internet content, technically, there is no official censorship of the local media here.
Journalists and publicists simply know that they should not publish anything that is contrary to public morals, offensive to religious and social norms or defamatory of the government.
But the issue is not so much one of censorship as one of reform. The fact that the reporters in the three cases previously mentioned were arrested, fined or have had to defend criminal charges means that third parties can take journalists to task simply by filing a criminal complaint for libel or defamation with the police. Complaints can result in criminal charges and imprisonment, though the Journalists Association reports that not a single reporter has been jailed since the defamation laws were passed. What this all means is that, until such a time as the new Publications Law is issued and journalism is subjected to the Civil Law, the unspoken rule for journalists is to self-regulate.
-The Rights Lawyers is a Dubai-based legal firm specializing in technology, media and communications.