Courts sentence journalists for contempt, slander worldwide

Sabir Shah ,Thursday, November 13, 2014 
LAHORE: Journalists and media houses all over the world have often been punished by their respective courts and media regulators for committing culpable crimes such as false reporting, defamation, libel, slander, extortion, getting their palms greased and even for not contemptuously disclosing sources of their stories before the presiding judges, a cumbersome research conducted by the Jang Group/Geo Television reveals.

Starting with India, here follow some widely-publicized global precedents in this context:

1. Not so long ago in November 2012, two senior journalists working an esteemed Indian television channel “Zee News” were arrested on extortion charges.

(Reference: the BBC online edition of November 27, 2012)

Sudhir Chaudhary, head of news, and Samir Ahluwalia, head of business at the “Zee News,” were jailed after they were accused of trying to extort $18 million from an Indian business firm “Jindal Group” in exchange for suppressing reports about the company’s alleged links to a high-profile corruption scandal involving the allocation of coal mining concessions.


Both the journalists and their channel had vehemently denied the charges.

The “Zee News” had called the arrests “a crude and direct attack on the freedom of the Press.

2. In another case, a Mumbai-based newsman Sudhir Dhawale was sent behind bars on January 2, 2011 on sedition and for his alleged involvement with a terrorist group. He had written about human rights violations against the suppressed Dalit community in his Marathi-language monthly “Vidrohi.”

(Reference: The Wall Street Journal)

Police had searched Sudhir’s home on January 3, 2011, and on January 20, 2011, he was accused of hanging Maoist posters.

He was denied bail in March 2012. However, after languishing in jail for 40 months, the court had acquitted him of all charges.

3. To cite yet another example from India, the Delhi High Court had convicted four senior journalists of Daily “Mid Day” in September 2007 for contempt of court charges.

They were punished for “tarnishing the image of the Supreme Court” by publishing certain scandalous articles about former Chief Justice of India, Y.K. Sabharwal.

(Reference: The Hindustan Times)

They were sentenced to four months jail for accusing Justice Sabharwal of having a conflict of interest, since his sons owned a firm that allegedly had relations with some Delhi real estate brokers.

A Bench of Justice R.S. Sodhi and Justice B.N. Chaturvedi had observed: “The publications, in the garb of scandalising a retired Chief Justice of India, have, in fact, attacked the very institution, which according to us is nothing short of contempt. The Supreme Court in its judgments has clearly laid down the ‘Lakshaman Rekha’, which we feel the publications have crossed.”

Those found guilty were MK Tayal, Editor (City), SK Akhtar, the then Publisher, Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor, and Irfan Khan, the Cartoonist.

The Court had rejected the contention of the daily, which had submitted that a judge, after retiring, ceases to be part of the judicial system and writing against him didn’t come within the ambit of court’s contempt.

The Bench had asserted. “The nature of the revelations and the context, in which they appear, though purporting to single out the former Chief Justice of India, tarnishes the image of the Supreme Court itself. It tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself.”

The judges had further ruled: “The Supreme Court sits in division and every order is that of a bench. By imputing motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other members are dummies or are party to fulfill the ulterior motive. This we find most disturbing.”

4. Now, let us see what had happened in China in recent years.

In 2007, the jail term of a Chinese journalist Meng Huaihu (former Bureau Chief for the “China Commercial Times”) was extended by court to 12 years from the previous seven-year sentence. He was accused of bribery and of extorting money from private companies using the threat of negative news reports.

The court had adjudged that since the journalists were actually performing a public duty, therefore, Bureau Chief Meng was guilty of the common executive offense of bribery, a far more serious crime than extortion.

Journalist Meng was quietly removed from his position in 2005 after allegedly trying to force an advertising contract from China Petroleum and Chemical Company by threatening to write a negative news report.

In 2009, another Beijing reporter Fu Hua was give a three-year jail term, after he had allegedly accepted 30,000 yuan ($4,400) in 2005 from two “whistle-blowing” employees of the Changchun Longjiapu Airport in 2005, with a tip off on airport construction quality.

(Reference: The China Daily, the Beijing Times)

Journalist Fu said he had only accepted 15,000 yuan, alleging police of torturing him until he said he accepted 40,000 yuan - a confession he later withdrew.

5. And in March 2005, according to the Reporters without Borders, a Chinese court had found a journalist Shi Tao guilty of “disclosing state secrets.”

He was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years for releasing a document of the Communist Party to an overseas Chinese democracy site.

6. In England, the “News of the World”— once the biggest selling English language newspaper in the world— was shut down in 2011.

Before its closure on July 7, 2011, this 1843 newspaper had gained a lot of notoriety for its “cheque-book journalism.”

It was often discovered attempting to buy stories about private affairs of key politicians, celebrities and high-profile criminals.

“The News of the World” was the same newspaper that had alleged three Pakistani cricketers (Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir) in August 2010 of spot-fixing during Pakistan’s tour of England.

In 2006, this newspaper was accused of illegally gaining access to hundreds of mobile phone voicemail accounts across England. It had even hired private investigators for this purpose to hack some 7,000 phones.

One hacked voicemail account had belonged to Milly Dowler, then missing, but later found to have been murdered.

The paper’s editor, Andy Coulson, had resigned two weeks earlier, but was arrested on July 8, 2011.

The publication’s former executive editor Neil Wallis was handcuffed on July 15, 2011 and another former editor, Rebekah Brooks, was held in custody on July 17, 2011.

The paper’s royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, was also jailed for four months and so were other reporters like Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup.

Even the paper’s owner and an eminent global media tycoon, Rupert Murdoch, was accused of pressurizing the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to hush up the probe in his “Phone-hacking scandal.”

7. The prestigious British media house “BBC,” the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees and the planet’s first regular high definition television service, was successfully sued many times for libel by plaintiffs, who had eventually succeeded in accepting libel damages from this internationally respected entity.

The “BBC” had lost a legal battle against Gianfranco Zola, the manager of the West Ham Football Club and his assistant Steve Clarke.

Both had accepted undisclosed libel damages from the BBC on May 12, 2009 over a report they were planning to move to another team, Chelsea.

The BBC’s lawyer, David Carrington, said the corporation did not endorse its anchorperson’s comments and had apologized for any distress caused.

(Reference: “The Independent”)

8. In November 2012, a famous BBC programme “The News night” had accused Lord McAlpine, a leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era, of being involved in sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.

Although he was not mentioned by name, this individual being referred to was Lord McAlpine. The report proved wrong - as the BBC had reportedly admitted on November 10, 2012.

It had consequently issued an unreserved apology and had agreed to pay Lord McAlpine, a sum of £185,000 (€215,000) over the story that had led to thousands of tweets linking him to the scandal.

(Reference: The “Irish Times”)

9. In December 2009, the BBC had lost another libel battle with an oil trading company Messrs Trafigura.

This is how “The Guardian” had reported this particular case on December 17, 2009: “After negotiations with Trafigura director Eric de Turckheim this week, the broadcaster agreed to apologise for a “News night” programme, pay £25,000 to charity, and withdraw any allegation that Trafigura’s toxic waste dumped in Africa had caused deaths.”

But at the same time, the BBC issued a combative statement, pointing out that the dumping of Trafigura’s hazardous waste had led to the British-based oil trader being forced to pay out £30million in compensation to victims.

The famous Daily Mail of Britain also faced court decision against it for publishing a baseless report.

The UK has Press Commission and a regulating body to review complaints against newspapers.

It has fined thousands of times on account of wrong news. People prefer to contact the commission in cases of complaints against news because it is strong and transparent. If anybody fails to get justice from the commission, they can approach court. The British courts also respect this institution.

In United States, where media outlets having the audacity to criticise governments have mostly won laurels in the court of law for more than 275 years and where freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, the content aired or printed is still subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law.

10. Although the US governments do not interfere with the printing and distribution of information or opinions on most occasions, four New York newspapers (New York Daily News, Journal of Commerce, Day Book and Freeman’s Journal) were given a presentment by a Grand Jury of the United States Circuit Court in 1861 for frequently encouraging the rebels by expressions of sympathy and agreement.

Fairly recently, in October 2014, a US newspaper “The Boston Herald” was ordered by the court to pay more than $900,000 to a woman Marinova it once reported engaged in “sexual acts” with a convicted murderer.

After deliberating for 15 hours last March, a jury found that three parts of the story were false and that two of them defamed Marinova, an activist who works for better prison conditions.

(Reference: The Associated Press, the Boston Globe)

In 2013, the Obama administration had asked court to force a “New York Times” reporter James Risen to reveal source.

(Reference: The Guardian)

Previous ruling said reporters have no privilege to safeguard confidentiality leaving Risen to reveal his source or go to jail.

“The Guardian” had stated: “The Obama administration is trying to dissuade federal judges from giving the New York Times reporter James Risen one last chance to avoid having to disclose his source in a criminal trial over the alleged leaking of US state secrets.”

The British newspaper had added: “The Department of Justice has filed a legal argument with the US appeals court for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in which it strongly opposes any further consideration of Risen’s petition, whose lawyers have asked the court to convene a full session of the 15-member court to decide whether the journalist should be granted First Amendment protection that would spare him from having to reveal the identity of his source to whom he promised confidentiality.”

It had maintained: “A three-member panel of the same court last month issued a 2-1 majority ruling in which they found that reporters had no privilege that would safeguard the confidentiality of their sources in a criminal trial. The judgment leaves Risen, a prominent investigative reporter specializing in national security issues, facing the prospect of having to break his promise to his source or go to jail. The legal crunch emerged from Risen’s 2006 book, “State of War,” in which the author reveals details of the CIA’s attempts to foil Iran’s nuclear programme.”

In a 26-page filing, the US prosecutor Neil MacBride and his team argue that Risen has no grounds to be offered a full hearing of the appeals court because there is no such thing as a reporters’ privilege in a criminal trial.

They had insisted that the “New York Times” journalist was the only eyewitness to the leaking crimes of which Sterling has been charged and under previous case law has no right to claim First Amendment protection.

Earlier, on June 2, 2014, an esteemed American media house the “Christian Science Monitor” had reported that the US Supreme Court had declined the case of reporter James Risen, who was seeking to protect confidential source, adding that the newsman might be held in contempt and sent to jail if he refused to reveal his source.

But, in October 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder had stated: “No reporter’s going to jail as long as I’m the attorney general.”

11. Risen is not the only reporter asked by the court to disclose his source.

A similar issue arose in 2005 when Judith Miller, also a “New York Times” reporter at the time, was ordered by a judge to reveal her source of information concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of the then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Miller had refused to reveal her source and was sent to jail for contempt of court.

She had spent 85 days behind bars. She was released after her source, Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, told her that she could disregard her earlier pledge of confidentiality.

She later testified and provided the requested information.

In October 2013, yet another American reporter, Roger Shuler, was arrested on contempt of court charges for his failure to comply with an earlier injunction that prohibited him from publishing certain stories on his blog.

The charges had stemmed from a defamation suit brought by prominent local attorney.

The jailed journalist had accused the plaintiff lawyer of having an extramarital affair and offered details.

In Italy, during October 2013, Francesco Gangemi, the 79-year-old editor of the monthly magazine “Il Dibattito” (The Debate), was taken into police custody the day after he was found guilty of libel and perjury.

He initially faced a six-year sentence on all charges, but the sentence was reduced to two years. He had to spend a week at a Calabria regional prison before being transferred to home confinement on October 12, 2013.

The imprisonment stemmed from eight libel convictions against Gangemi between 2007 and 2012 in connection with articles and commentaries in his magazine about public life in Italy, with a focus on prominent figures involved in corruption cases.

It is imperative to note that although Italy is one of the few countries in the European Union where defamation remains a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, journalists are often made to pay fines rather than go to prison.

But, the concept of punishment exists.

In September 2013, another Italian newspaper editor was given a suspended four-month prison sentence by a court for criminal defamation.

In June 2014, according to the “New York Times,” an Egyptian court had given two “Al Jazeera English” journalists seven-year terms and a third a 10-year term after convicting them of conspiring with former President Mohammad Morsi’s “Muslim Brotherhood” to broadcast false reports of civil strife.

The case has attracted special attention because all three journalists had previously worked for established international news organizations like the CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, BBC and a renowned Japanese news organization “The Asahi Shimbun.”

All the three media men were in jail since their arrest in December 2013 from an “Al Jazeera” makeshift studio in Cairo’s Marriott Hotel.

In May 2002, as the “Associated Press” had reported, a Turkish court had sentenced a journalist to a suspended prison term of one year and eight months for writing that ordinary Turks have little hope for a fair trial in the country.

The court had found Burak Bekdil, a columnist for the English-language Turkish newspaper “Daily News;” guilty of insulting state institutions in an article he wrote criticizing his country’s judicial system.

Mine Cevik, a senior editor with the newspaper, was given a suspended fine of $1,000 for printing Bekdil’s articles.

Bekdil had received an 18-month suspended sentence for “insulting the judiciary.”

(Reference: The global network for free expression)

Meanwhile, the international journalist group “Reporters Without Borders” had said in 2002 that its general-secretary, Robert Menard, was banned from entering Turkey, following a controversial display (at the Saint-Lazare train station in Paris), in which he had accused Turkey’s top general of impeding freedom of the Press.

He had characterized the then Turkish Chief of Staff, General Huseyin Kivrikoglu, as a “Predator of Press Freedom” alongside 37 other world leaders, including Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi.

In Israel, the Ethics Court of the Israeli Press Council, had convicted a journalist Ron Ben-Yishai and the daily “Yediot Ahronot” in June 2000 of having failed to seek the version of a former Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, who was otherwise found guilty of revealing details of his country’s nukes to the British Press in 1986.

Although Vanunu had spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary confinement, journalist Ron Ben-Yishai had printed a defamatory story against him without seeking his point of view, where he should actually have.

While warning the guilty journalist and his media outlet, the court had also ordered them to print most of the ruling in a prominent place in the newspaper.

In 2004, the same Ron Ben-Yishai was appointed spokesman for the Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-34062-Courts-sentence-journalists-for-contempt-slander-worldwide