Activity Details (ID# 10857)

Activity Synopsis

The objective of the seminar was to take stock of the first year of implementation of the 2004 Law on freedom of speech and expression and to answer questions that might have arisen during this period. The aim of the seminar was also to discuss the importance of self-regulation and to initiate a discussion on the code of ethics for broadcasters which is under preparation. 

During the first session, Professor Dirk Voorhoof, who carried out the expertise of the draft Law and of amendments to this draft in 2002, reviewed the law and focussed on two particular issues i. e. protection of sources and defamation. His general appreciation of the law was very positive; nevertheless, he mentioned that restricting provisions might exist in other laws and that this should be taken into account by media professionals. He insisted on the importance that guidelines and training be given to police units, public prosecutors, investigative judges and court judges.

Levan Ramishvili, of the Liberty Institute, recalled that the discussions on this law started in 1996 and that one of its main goals was to restrict interference by the State in freedom of speech and expression. The Law was drafted on the Swedish model and this explains why journalists have immunity against complaints. However, in practice, certain officials continue to bring complaints to the courts, in particular in the regions. Mr Ramishvili also stated that the major problems today for the media were the lack of editorial independence and the difficulties in accessing information. However, he wondered whether the media were active enough in investigating certain questions that the Government would prefer not to be examined. He concluded that the Law was not sufficient in itself and that in order to improve freedom of expression, those persons in charge of the implementation of the law should be trained and investigative journalism should be encouraged. The roots of lack of independence were then discussed by the participants. Questions regarding access to information, right of reply and media professionalism were also raised.

The second session was dedicated to self-regulation.

Mr Levan Kakheladze, representative of the Public Broadcasting Service, explained that a provision of the Law on Public Service Broadcasting foresees that a code of ethics for broadcasters must be adopted. He stated that discussions have begun and that a comparative analysis of different codes of ethics was currently underway. He informed the participants that when the draft was ready, it would be made public, so that the public can be consulted and be involved in discussions.

Professor Claude Jean Bertrand, Professor Emeritus, University of Paris II, France, gave a presentation of different mass media accountability systems and then engaged in a discussion with the participants.

Several questions were raised, among which: At what level will the code be adopted? Who will supervise the application of the code? What will be the composition of the self regulatory body which will supervise the application of the code? Will there be sanctions applied and of what kind? Journalists wondered who will be controlling themselves and expressed the hope that journalists would be in the self -regulatory body which would supervise the application of the code.

Discussions led the two European experts to draw the participant’s attention to the distinction between ethics and regulation: ethics is for journalists because they have moral conscience, regulation is for the media ; ethics can be formulated in a vague way so that you can have a debate on it but law and regulation have to be clear ; moral pressure by the profession can be very efficient; codes are not only about duties but also about rights and should be endorsed by editors in order to be more efficient ; the public should also be associated in order to create an climate of confidence between journalists and the public.

Claude-Jean Bertrand concluded that discussions between all stakeholders before the adoption of the code were almost as important as the adoption of the code itself. 

The seminar was successful and appreciated by the participants with whom there were lively discussions. As a follow-up to this seminar the Council of Europe could organise a round-table to discuss the future code of ethics for broadcasters.

The issue of editorial independence and access to information could be usefully discussed during seminars. Attention should be paid to the difficulties met by the media in the region and training should also be organised in or for the regions.
 

Journalists from the press sector, broadcasters, members of NGOs, judges 

Dirk VOORHOOF, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium and Copenhagen, Denmark
Claude-Jean BERTRAND, Professor Emeritus, University of Paris II, France 

Charlotte de Broutelles, Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights