by Rick Lowe
A page three story in The Tribune on Friday, September 29, 2006 by Ms. Alison Lowe is worth noting…at least by bloggers…and particularly as silly season (general election) approaches.
Admittedly some weblogs, or blogs as they are more commonly referred to, push the envelope where defamation is concerned, but limiting this outlet of opinion would be a sad day indeed.
It would appear that Lowe’s Law,where Politician’s spend their careers making laws to keep everyone else accountable and make the average citizen and business play “fair”, yet, they refuse to hold themselves to the same standards, is rearing it’s ugly head once more.
There are existing laws relating to libel and these should solve the matter without more government control through additional legislation.
What makes this even more ridiculous is that Members of Parliament can say almost anything they wish, about anyone they wish, within the confines of Parliament with impunity so why should the public or bloggers be restricted?
Let Parliamentarians, individuals and bloggers, live up to the same standards. But I would suggest M.P.’s don’t have the courage to defend the average Bahamian’s right to free speech as they do themselves.
Rick
I have not read Ms Lowe’s article therefore I cannot possibly comment on its merits. But I’m not sure what your concern is, if you believe that existing libel laws should apply to bloggers. Because what I find particularly pernicious about too many bloggers, is that they blog under the misguided belief that they “can say almost anything they wish, about anyone they wish…with impunity.”
Therefore, if Ms Lowe is warning such bloggers to beware, then that’s a good thing.
Now, are you saying that you think the Parliamentary speech immunities, which are the hallmark of all Westminster-style democracies, including the United States, should be revoked, notwithstanding how much you think Bahamian MPs abuse their immunities?
Surely not Sir!
Thanks Anthony:
I used Ms. Lowe’s (no relation that I am aware of) column as a launch pad to show the duplicity of our political class. So I don’t necessarily think they should lose their priviledges, but they should bear those in mind when reducing the priviliedges of Mr. John Q. Public.
A case in point are the financial reports required by MP’s that Sir Lynden implemented to ensure “transparency”. Of course I believe they were implemented in an effort to “expose” the wealth of MP’s at the time, but that aside, the MP’s have not filled them in for years. And you know what? Nothing has happened to them!!! But it’s the law!
And as the election draws nigh, you will see the PLP tightening free speech as usual.
They actually have talk shows here stop the shows before the election.
Consider this with the years the PLP used ZNS radio and TV as their quasi spokespeople and you will begin to get the picture.