Media community should propose revision of Press Law

By Akhmad Kusaeni

Information and Communications Minister Muhammad Nuh said whether or not Press Law No. 40/1999 should be revised was entirely up to the press community.

Speaking during a visit to Antara News Agency early this week, he said the government would not take the initiative to amend the Press Law.

"Whether or not the Press Law needs to be revised, we leave it to the press," he said. "Well, it is up to you, journalists, to decide and the government will go along."

"But in my opinion, the media community should propose a revision to the existing press law. There are many reasons why the Press Law needs a revision. One of them is the fact that the Press Law is not the only law being used to settle legal cases against the press. It is not `Lex specialis derogate lex generalis` yet."

"Let me make this point clear. There is a legalistic dispute between those who defend and promote press freedom and those who seem to be not in favor of the idea of press freedom. The former urge the courts to use the Press Law but in many legal cases involving the press, the courts prefer to use criminal laws that provide for harsher sentences instead."

Indonesia`s Press Law No. 40/1999 states that the press is obliged to observe the right of reply (Article 5, A2) as well as the right of correction and retraction (Article 5, A3). Press publishing companies that ignore this obligation are liable to a maximum fine of Rp500 million (US$6,000).

The problem of the right of reply under existings laws is that offering the right of reply to a victim does not foreclose or bar any action to prosecute the media concerned for libel. As a consequence, over the last few years, some of Indonesia`s most popular publications have been plagued by a series of libel lawsuits filed by businessmen, politicians and senior military officers.

A revision of the existing press law should include an explicit provision that if the offending media publishes a retraction or apology, or offers the right of reply, a libel suit may proceed but not result in criminal penalties.

In this case, only compensation will be awarded. The revised law should not call for the passing of any jail sentences.Concrete examples This way of settling people`s complaints against media was applied in the case of Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) Commander General Endriartono Sutarto against The Washington Post.

General Sutarto withdrew his libel suit against the Washington-based newspaper because the latter offered him the right to reply and published an apology for its mistake. Another example was the case of Shinivasan versus Kompas daily. Businessman Shinivasan filed a libel suit against Kompas but later the two parties agreed to seek an out-of-court settlement.

Kompas daily offered the right to reply and made a formal apology, Shinivasan then withdrew his lawsuit.These two cases are a good precedent in the promotion of the right to reply in order to avoid civil and criminal libel prosecution.

Attorney Pablito Perez of Ateneo de Manila University said the right to reply would be an important alternative remedy, particularly when there was no malice in the libelous report, only error, slight negligence or even poor editorial judgment.

Where there is malice, the right to reply may be a little more complicated since a reply does not fully restore a reputation severely injured.

In this case, a party aggrieved by news or a story can still file a libel lawsuit with a civil court. But going to court in a libel action is rarely a happy experience for any of the parties involved. Plaintiffs are rarely gratified. Lawyers` fees can take as much as 50 percent of their winnings.

It often takes years to litigate.The press isn`t happy either. Defense costs are high and editors are immobilized for long periods of time. Publicity about the lawsuit only reinforces the negative attitude many persons have about the news media, further damaging its credibility.Thus, the best way to avoid the risk of libel lawsuits is promoting the right to reply and the media`s readiness to correct their mistakes.

If necessary, offer an apology. But the best thing media can do is to practice "good journalism." Abide by the code of ethics in seeking the truth and in reporting it. Lawyers say the truth is the best defense in libel cases. Most plaintiffs would never have filed a lawsuit if the news media had published or broadcast a correction, retraction, or apology.

CEO of Mobil Oil William Tavoulareas had this to say when he filed a lawsuit against The Washington Post: "I`m not trying to destroy the press. I know what a free press means to this country. This suit would not have happened if they had admitted their mistakes."

The hardest word
The problem is many journalists are reluctant to do this. Like the title of an old song "It is hard to say I am sorry". Yes, sorry seems to be the hardest word for journalists to utter.Another important thing in the effort to decriminalize libel and to revise the current Press Law is empowering the Press Council as a tool to mediate between the media and the public.

Thus, revising the Press Law means clearly stating that all media-related cases should be resolved through the Press Council. A revision of the Press Law should make the Press Council a means to resolve press disputes that is more effective and efficient than court proceedings. (*)
Copyright © ANTARA