While freedom of
expression is said to be the cornerstone of democracy, of late it seems to be
on shaky ground.
It remains on a
steady footing here in Portugal
compared to most countries and that is probably because of prevailing moral
attitudes as much as the fact that it is enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.
Throughout most
of Portugal ’s
history, monarchs, the Catholic Church and political dictators have done their
best to stop people from expressing anti-establishment opinions.
That changed
dramatically after the 1974 revolution. Article 37 of the Constitution lays
down that “everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his
thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform
others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or
form of censorship.”
Strong as that
sounds, freedom of expression in Portugal is not absolute.
The 2014 Press
Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders ranks Portugal at
number 30 out of the 180 countries covered. That is three places ahead of the UK and 16 places ahead of the USA .
Among the main
obstacles to freedom of the press in Portugal as in other European countries
are national security restrictions, curbs on information about criminal
investigations and defamation suits involving demands for large amounts in
damages.
In even the
freest countries, defamation against a private individual is a crime, as is
blasphemy and hate speech against religion or race.
The courts in Portugal are occasionally
asked to step in to exercise control when freedom seems to have been pushed too
far.
A few years ago,
the Lisbon-based weekly Sol was
fined €1.5 million for defying a court injunction by publishing details from
phone conversations recorded in a police surveillance operation.
Last year, Portugal ’s
attorney general opened an investigation into a well-known journalist and
author who described President Aníbal Cavaco Silva as “a clown.” Insulting the honour
of the head of state constitutes an offence under Article 328 of the country’s
Penal Code and may attract a punishment of up to three years imprisonment.
This summer a
30-year-old Algarve
artist appeared in court charged with demeaning a national symbol by hanging a
Portuguese flag on a gallows in an abandoned field near Faro. It was an
expression of personal protest as part of a university project. He avoided a
possible five-year sentence when the court ruled he was exercising his freedom
of expression. Even in Finland
demeaning the national flag is a punishable crime.
Then there is the
stalled McCanns vs Gonçalo Amaral civil action in which the British couple are
seeking €1.2 in damages from publication of the former detective’s
controversial book, Maddie: A Verdade da
Mentira (The truth of the Lie). While
Amaral is claiming his right to freedom of expression, the McCanns have argued
that he has deeply harmed them personally and also hindered the search for
their daughter.
The McCann couple
said recently that press regulation in Britain was still not working. This
came after they were awarded £55,000 in libel damages from the Sunday Times.
As if regulating print media was not complicated enough, online social networking has opened up a completely
new frontier, bringing new privileges and pleasures - and also new concerns and
challenges.
Unlike the legally
accountable mainstream media, social media users operate largely at will. Lord
Leveson in his report noted that some called the internet a ‘‘wild west,’’ but
he preferred to use the term “ethical vacuum.”
Security services
have been monitoring internet communications between terrorists, political extremist
groups and criminal organisations. Paedophile rings have also become a focus of
special attention. In the main, though, internet users have been largely beyond
the remit of regulation.
Things may be
changing. Increasingly, hateful ‘trolls’ operating in anonyminity from the
comfort of their tablets or smartphones risk being tracked down, as indicated
by the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation of a catalogue of threats
and vile insults aimed at the McCanns.
In a case thought
to be unprecedented in Portugal, court of appeal judges in the northern city of
Oporto have unanimously upheld the dismissal of an employee for comments on
Facebook. The employee had claimed “right to privacy” and “freedom of
expression” in response to allegations that his comments were offensive, but
the judge in the court of first instance argued, “it is unacceptable that
freedom of expression and communication does not have any type of outer
limits.”
A court of appeal
in Texas last month seemed to be manouevering in the outer limits when it ruled
that Texans had the constitutional right to take photographs of strangers, even
if that involved surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women or close-up body
shots of children in bathing suits for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification.
The judges in Texas said this was an essential component of freedom of expression and to deny it
was a “paternalistic” intrusion on a person’s civil rights.
Was this further securing
a cornerstone of democracy, or conceding a freedom too far?