|
EVEN AS COSTA RICAN JOURNALISTS BATTLED A
FLURRY of defamation lawsuits, a proposed bill that would have greatly enhanced
press freedom in the country failed to win legislative approval.
On February 15, the Legislative Assembly's judiciary committee rejected
a bill, drafted by several leading journalists and endorsed by President
Miguel Angel Rodríguez, that would have introduced the so-called
actual malice standard into Costa Rican law. While defamation remained a
criminal offense, plaintiffs would have been required to prove not only
that the published information was false, but also that the journalist knew
or should have known it was false at the time of publication, according
to Fernando Guier, a lawyer and columnist for the San José daily
La Nación.
Meanwhile, a proposed amendment to the Penal Code would increase the maximum
fine for defamation from 150 to 200 days' wages, which could be converted
into a prison sentence if unpaid. The bill also introduces the novel concept
of "subliminal" defamation, a category that would grant dangerous interpretive
latitude to local judges.
Defamation cases against local media have increased in frequency over the
last few years, according to Hugo Chavarría-Soto, legal counsel to
the San José daily La República. Most were dismissed,
but several highly dubious cases did go forward, raising the fears of journalists
in a country long regarded as one of the freest and most democratic in Latin
America.
On November 12, 1999, a criminal court ordered journalist Mauricio Herrera
Ulloa of La Nación to pay damages equivalent to 120 days'
wages for four articles that cited European press reports alleging corruption
by Costa Rican diplomat Félix Przedborski. The court ordered La
Nación to pay 60 million colones (US$190,000) in damages. One
of the arguments used to justify such a large fine was that the articles
were available on the Internet, and therefore reached a larger audience
for a longer period of time.
The court also ordered La Nación to remove all links from
its Web site that could lead the reader to the contested articles. "This
becomes a violation both of the integrity of La Nación Digital
and of the right of each individual to search the Internet for texts
or information he considers opportune," La Nación editor Eduardo
Ulibarri wrote in a February letter posted on the Latin American journalism
site "Sala de Prensa" (www.saladeprensa.org).
The judges ruled that Herrera had shown malicious intent by continuing to
investigate the case despite testimony from two former Costa Rican presidents
who vouched for Przedborski's integrity, Guier said. La Nación
appealed to the Supreme Court in December 1999. The court rejected the appeal
on January 24, 2001.
On August 18, another San José criminal court ordered Rogelio Benavides,
editor of La Nación's TV supplement Teleguía,
to pay a fine equivalent to 20 days' wages or face a jail sentence. Enrique
González Jiménez, a beauty pageant promoter, sued Benavides
based on a review of his pageant that appeared in a 1999 issue of Teleguía.
La Nación published a letter from González's lawyer
after the review appeared. Moreover, Article 151 of the Penal Code holds
that press reviews cannot be characterized as "offenses against honor."
Nevertheless, the court convicted Benavides of libel and ordered that its
ruling be published in Teleguía.
|