This is apropos a letter to the Editor by this writer carried by the newspaper yesterday. I wish to add to my argument by saying, among other things, that comparing the definitions of “newspaper” in the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 and the Defamation Ordinance 2002 reveals similarities and differences in scope and terminology.
The Punjab Act expands the definition to include websites, applications, or other social media platforms issuing public news or occurrences, acknowledging the digital shift in media consumption. Additionally, the Punjab Act grants the government authority to declare other periodical works as newspapers through official notification, whereas the Defamation Ordinance vests this power with the Federal Government.
Comparing both definitions, the internationally accepted definition recognizes newspapers in various formats, including digital platforms like websites and social media applications reflects the changing landscape of journalism and acknowledges the importance of online news sources in today’s society.
The excerpts from the Defamation Ordinance of 2002 outline specific definitions and penalties related to defamation, including minimum amounts for damages and remedies such as apologies and compensatory payments (e.g., minimum compensatory damages of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 300,000 for the originator). Similarly, the Punjab Act specifies minimum compensatory damages of Rs. 3,000,000 for general damages.
The section of the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 imposes stringent restrictions on commenting during legal proceedings, applying to all involved parties and carrying significant fines for violations, escalating with each day of non-compliance.
Unlike many international practices, this provision lacks specific defenses, prohibiting any justification for breaches. While limitations on public statements during legal proceedings are common, the severity of fines and absence of recognized defenses in this Act may raise concerns about potential constraints on freedom of expression and due process rights, diverging from typical international norms and potentially impacting the fairness and transparency of legal proceedings.
The implementation of the Defamation Act carries various implications, depending on one’s perspective. For bloggers, vloggers, YouTubers, and TikTokers, particularly those focusing on news, current affairs, commentary, analysis, and viewpoints, this law is expected to instill much-needed discipline and promote sanity by deterring the dissemination of derogatory, baseless, and frivolous personal comments that often lack connection to truth or reality but contribute to sensationalism and societal unrest.
Conversely, traditional media outlets, including print, TV, and radio, which already adhere to stringent parameters, standard operating procedures (SOPs), checks, balances, and professional oversight to ensure factual and truthful news reporting, as well as fair and reality-grounded analysis and commentary, may not perceive a significant impact from this Act. Politicians, security agencies, courts, and civil and military bureaucracy, often targets of defamation, might view the Act favorably due to potential protection from unwarranted attacks on their reputation.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.