MIAMI, Florida
(Feb. 15) -The Inter American Press Association today called an
Argentine appeals court award of punitive damages to a judge for
remarks made about her in a television show a setback for press
freedom in the South American country.
The National Civil Appeals Court ordered reporter Bernardo Neustadt,
the Telefé television network, which broadcasts the program
"New Times," and Zidanelia Pacheco de Maroneses, who made
the alleged defamatory remarks while being interviewed by Neustadt
on the program, to pay Judge Elisa Díaz de Vivar $80,000
in damages. The ruling upheld an earlier one by a lower court.
The IAPA said
the award was a setback for freedom of the press in Argentina because
it ran counter to case law there establishing lack of malice as
a defense in libel cases. The ruling was also undemocratic, the
free-press group added, because it meant journalists have to resort
to prior censorship of the people they interview and therefore are
unable to freely transmit the views of others. In addition, it revived
the concept underlying the contempt law contained in the Penal Code
that had been overturned in 1993 and which made criticism of a public
official a criminal offense.
The chairman
of the IAPAs Committee on Fredom of the Press and Information,
Rafael Molina, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, said that "this
ruling surprises us because it amounts to granting special privilege
to judges, who after all are merely public officials who must always
remain under public scrutiny."
"It is
wrong for a journalist to be held financially and legally liable
for what a person he or she interviews says - more so when, as in
this case, the alleged offender or news source is clearly identified
and the journalist does not endorse the remarks," Molina added.
IAPA President
Tony Pederson, of the Houston Chronicle, Houston, Texas, said he
was optimistic this ruling would not be used as a precedent overturning
those major ones that the Argentine high courts had set concerning
the peoples right to information.
"It is
true that the lower court decision and its being upheld by the appeals
court is a cause for concern, but we are confident that the Argentine
Supreme Court will overturn it on the basis of case law establishing
the defense of absence of malice aforethought and thus will uphold
the constitutional guarantee that prior cenosrhsip shall not be
imposed," Pederson said.
FUENTE: nota.texto7
