Can I Talk About The Media Bill?
The nation says the following: “The furore raised by the Media Bill boils down to a single issue: should government have the power to force journalists to reveal an unnamed source”? The Nation uses American law as an example and cites the case of Judy Miller to argue against this media bill, but I don’t think it’s just about this one issue. It’s about defamation laws in Kenya in general and how the MP’s are confusing the issue. MP’s are citing Unnamed sources as the culprit, but it’s the public criticism that they want to squash.
I’m actually surprised that I have not seen the following explanation in either the Standard or the Nation about why these’s MP’s are just wrong.
First:
The defamation laws are not designed to protect individual’s whose “feelings get hurt” by whatever verbal statements are made by whomever. How many times have you said nasty things to people (or vice versa?) — can you imagine what would happen if the courts allowed individuals to sue every time someone said something to you that “hurt your feelings”?
Second:
Defamation laws make a distinction between private individuals and public individuals. The law assumes that individuals who voluntarily put themselves out into the public sphere should expect to receive a larger amount of public criticism and even public scrutiny. So, for example, if a celebrity were to sue a publication for slander or defamation, their burden of proof would be much higher than that required for a private individual who has not voluntarily decided to become a public figure and open his or her life up to public scrutiny.
Politicians can’t have it both ways – they can’t put themselves out into the public arena, take public tax payer money as a salary and then turn around and say that they don’t want to be publicly scrutinized!! If you don’t want the public scrutiny, become a private citizen and live a quiet life.
Third:
In order to win a defamation lawsuit, you’d first have to prove that the statements made were false (by providing evidence of the true statements). However, proving this would not be enough. In order to get a monetary judgement, you would also have to prove that the statements made, resulted in a financial loss to you (the courts will not reward money without you providing this proof of damages). They are several cases where newspapers have been forced to recant statements without having to pay the aggrieved party (if you suffered no monetary loss as a result of the slanderous statement, then why should you be paid?).
Does the law in Kenya make a place for this private/public distinction? It looks like the courts need to clarify it once and for all so these silly MP’s can stop attacking the media every time their “feelings get hurt”.
KE: Well put lakini you forget… these buffoons are KENYAN politicians!
We do not have a Ben Franklin or a Jefferson or a Washington among these nincompoops.
!0% of the current crop is the maximum number who are worth re-electing e.g. Mathaai, etc… no more…
Even honest well-meaning folk will shy away from public office seeing how this group is so self-centered. I see no “real” pride in being a Kenyan politician.