New threat to media & free speech
06 May 2025
EDDIE TANAGO
| Act Now!
PORT MORESBY - World Press Freedom Day was observed on Saturday, as it is every year, to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the press and remind governments of their duty to uphold and maintain freedom of expression.
Papua New Guinea is one tough environment to be a journalist or an advocate for good governance and human rights.
The country is riddled with corruption that has grown tentacles into every sphere of life. Trying to expose it can mean death threats and expensive lawsuits.
In recent times, journalists and human rights defenders and advocates have come under attack from a new threat.
It’s called Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or SLAPP for short.
A SLAPP is a lawsuit filed by someone in a position of authority and power, whether in government or business, that is intended to silence legitimate criticism and free speech.
It is a deliberate misuse of the court system to intiidmate and harass critics and involve them in expensive and time-consuming litigation.
SLAPPs can have huge impacts, including: financially and psychologically draining victims; damaging reputation; imprisonment; and silencing and instilling fear into critics.
SLAPPs are frequently used in countries like the USA and Australia against journalists, civil society advocates and human rights defenders.
In light of this threat, some countries have created laws to make SLAPPs illegal.
In Papua New Guinea, SLAPPs are a relatively new concept but they are on the rise.
To ensure that freedom of speech is maintained the government needs to:
- Introduce anti-SLAPP laws;
- Provide training for judges and lawyers;
- Ensure Ministers, MPs and officials do not use SLAPPS to silence critics;
- Educate the public about SLAPPs and their impact in suppressing freedom of speech.
It is over seven decades since the late Thurgood Marshall's momentous victory in the Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954), case covering the desegregation of schools across the United States, which Marshall believed was a necessary precondition for assuring equal rights.
However, his legal achievements went far beyond the black American civil rights movement with each and every one of his arguments addressing individual rights.
During his tenure on the US Supreme Court, his rulings, including majority opinions and dissents, reflected an expansive view of the US Constitution as a manifesto of individual liberty.
He was a crusader for the downtrodden with a broad interpretation of almost all provisions in the US Constitution and vigorously campaigned for individual rights and those of minority groups.
He was a guardian of free speech for individuals and the press. Meanwhile, President Trump recently issued an executive order to block funding for the National Public Radio (NPR) network and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
Posted by: Bernard Corden | 07 May 2025 at 02:44 PM