The new act brings long overdue and much-needed reform to our Mother Country’s notoriously one-sided libel laws. Free speech advocates, ourselves included, laud the common-sense changes.
Now, for example, potential plaintiffs must demonstrate they have suffered “serious harm” before they can sue for defamation. The new law also includes protections for academics publishing peer-reviewed material in professional journals and for people publishing material they reasonably believe to be in the public interest.
U.K. ministers say the new act “reverses the chilling effect” on free expression under the old laws. We hope a similar thaw extends to the shores of the Cayman Islands.
Here, however, we know that changing an existing statute or two will not be sufficient to cut us free from the framework of legislation, intimidation and cultural tradition arrayed against expression by ordinary citizens.
Take our justice system, for example. As a newspaper, we are often precluded from publishing information about legal cases, even if the information is obviously in the public interest and already in the public domain. The inexact concepts of “sub judice” and “scandalizing the judiciary” (a form of contempt of court) are especially onerous and limiting to responsible publishers. (The Compass regularly takes legal advice before printing articles relating to matters before the courts or even before offering editorial opinions on matters already adjudicated and the judicial opinions underlying them.)
In December, the U.K.’s Law Commission recommended abolishing the offense of scandalizing the court. Cayman legislators should take note.
We would encourage Chief Justice Anthony Smellie to educate the Compass and other media on the subject of what Cayman courts deem acceptable to be published before, during and after legal proceedings. That instruction could be in the form of a presentation, a private meeting, or an informative seminar.
If we were to receive such an invitation, consider this our RSVP: We’ll be there.
In particular, we seek clarity on the rules, and then consistency of their application; in other words, different media (print, radio, TV or web) should have a single, uniform and explicit set of standards.
In contrast to the highly regulated environs of the courts, a totally different situation exists within the Legislative Assembly where “parliamentary privilege” offers lawmakers a virtually protected “libel-free zone,” enabling them to slander, defame, or vilify any opponent or critic with legal impunity.
Say something libelous about a lawmaker on the radio, and you can be sued (as you should be). But if the lawmaker, on the House floor, says the same thing about you, you have no legal recourse.
Among Caymanians (and even more so among expatriates), a culture of unhealthy self-censorship pervades our culture. Potential retribution from elected members, regulatory board appointees, or any number of sources, in effect, has silenced most of the population. They won’t sign their names to letters to the editor, website blogs, or even attend public protests or meetings. In effect, we have a country in hiding, a situation that should not be encouraged — or even tolerated — by our government or our governor.
A free society is underpinned by free speech, circumscribed almost exclusively by reasonable and explicit libel, slander and defamation statutes. It’s time for Caymanians — and expatriates — to speak up on this issue.
Related Videos
