Vernon Daley

There has been much talk about reviewing the country's defamation laws in an effort to promote greater investigative journalism. The purists, of course, will tell us that the term is redundant since journalism by its very nature must be investigative. But that's a matter for another day.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has done us a good turn by appointing a committee to look at relaxing our defamation laws. When he announced this as a campaign promise I was very sceptical since politicians are not in the habit of doing anything that opens them up to greater scrutiny.

Liberalisation

My concern, however, is that the impression is being spread, by those involved in the conversation, that any liberalisation of the laws is for the benefit of those involved in the business of journalism. This is not the case.

Ultimately, it is the public that stands to profit from any movement to relax the laws because what is really at stake is the right of people to hold and exchange views about matters of public concern. That right is the lifeblood of a democratic society - it helps to safeguard us against the tyranny of the influential and powerful.

It is a right that belongs to the reporter on the beat no more than the letter writer to the newspaper, the caller to the talk show or the group of people standing on the sidewalk talking about the events of the day.

This brings me to what is really important in this debate: what course should we take in dealing with those involved in public life, especially public officials? Are they to be afforded less protection under defamation laws than ordinary citizens?

I have made the point repeatedly in this column that public officials ought not to have the same level of protection as that afforded to private citizens insofar as it relates to the ability to sue for defamation. The public official is a trustee of public power. His abuse of that power can have disastrous consequences for a nation and its future. One of the best ways to prevent a corruption of that power is to ensure that such a person is constantly under scrutiny by the public.

The law on defamation is meant to strike that balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, but when we are dealing with public people, I suggest that the balance has to be tipped in favour of freedom of expression.

Reasonable and proper

Public officials must not be allowed to use defamation suits as a shield to protect them for reasonable and proper scrutiny relating to their official functions. For a country troubled by so many scandals and such widespread corruption, the good sense of reducing the protection afforded to public officials should be evident.

However, it is not only public officials who should be held to a different standard. All those public persons who occupy positions of influence and power in the society should come in for this kind of treatment. That includes entertainers, business people and even church leaders.

I am aware of a case in which the threat of a libel suit has prevented sections of the media from delving into a matter involving a prominent company implicated in fleecing the public purse. This should not be. The public should have greater freedom in discussing these matters once it is done with reasonable care and good taste.

There is nothing new or radical about this. The United States Supreme Court went that route more than 40 years ago when it made its pronouncement in New York Times v Sullivan. The British House of Lords has inched towards that position in the Reynolds v Times Newspaper case. Perhaps we will wait until the British courts fully endorse Sullivan before we hold it out to be the democratic ideal.