Tweet
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY: NUMBER OF LAWSUITS UNDERSCORES NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING OF MEDIA RIGHTS
By Sara Khojoyan
ArmeniaNow
21.10.11 | 16:36
Leaders of eight Armenian news outlets have appealed to the
Constitutional Court of Armenia demanding to declare articles on insult
and slander anti-constitutional. (The increasing number of lawsuits
against mass media representatives has become an issue of serious
concerns ever since the decriminalization of these articles last year.)
Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan's appeal to the Constitutional Court
became the driving force for mass media representatives, who followed
his example, even without high hopes for any positive outcome. The
ombudsman assured that the current lawsuits might be suspended as
a result.
"If the Ombudsman has taken that step, it means that the authorities
are trying to settle the issue through him," editor of 'Jhamanak'
(Time) daily Arman Babajanyan said at a press conference on Friday.
Soon after the articles on insult and slander were decriminalized in
March 2010, 29 court claims were filed against news outlets, and only
one of them was dropped. Editors are worried not only because the cases
are almost always resolved in favor of the claimant, but also because
the court always applies the strictest punishment putting mass media in
a difficult financial situation, and forcing to pay millions of drams.
According to the report by Freedom of Speech Protection Committee,
presented on Friday, an unprecedented number of claims against mass
media have been filed within the third quarter of 2011 (11 claims
with accusations of insult and slander).
Chairman of the Committee Ashot Melikyan, who believes the lawsuits
are a way of political and economic pressure upon mass media, told
reporters that the decision of the Constitutional Court is not enough
to settle the issue.
"On the other hand, freedom of speech is never handed to public on
a silver plate, and in this respect, there are no guarantees that
even more regressive laws will not be adopted," Melikyan clarified,
responding to questions on the possible decision of the Constitutional
Court.
By Sara Khojoyan
ArmeniaNow
21.10.11 | 16:36
Leaders of eight Armenian news outlets have appealed to the
Constitutional Court of Armenia demanding to declare articles on insult
and slander anti-constitutional. (The increasing number of lawsuits
against mass media representatives has become an issue of serious
concerns ever since the decriminalization of these articles last year.)
Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan's appeal to the Constitutional Court
became the driving force for mass media representatives, who followed
his example, even without high hopes for any positive outcome. The
ombudsman assured that the current lawsuits might be suspended as
a result.
"If the Ombudsman has taken that step, it means that the authorities
are trying to settle the issue through him," editor of 'Jhamanak'
(Time) daily Arman Babajanyan said at a press conference on Friday.
Soon after the articles on insult and slander were decriminalized in
March 2010, 29 court claims were filed against news outlets, and only
one of them was dropped. Editors are worried not only because the cases
are almost always resolved in favor of the claimant, but also because
the court always applies the strictest punishment putting mass media in
a difficult financial situation, and forcing to pay millions of drams.
According to the report by Freedom of Speech Protection Committee,
presented on Friday, an unprecedented number of claims against mass
media have been filed within the third quarter of 2011 (11 claims
with accusations of insult and slander).
Chairman of the Committee Ashot Melikyan, who believes the lawsuits
are a way of political and economic pressure upon mass media, told
reporters that the decision of the Constitutional Court is not enough
to settle the issue.
"On the other hand, freedom of speech is never handed to public on
a silver plate, and in this respect, there are no guarantees that
even more regressive laws will not be adopted," Melikyan clarified,
responding to questions on the possible decision of the Constitutional
Court.