WPFC Statement on the Sentencing of Two Spanish Radio Journalists
Washington, USA., December 26, 2009 — The World Press Freedom Committee —an organization representing 45 press freedom groups from throughout the world— expresses alarm and deep concern over the criminal convictions and sentencing of Cadena SER Radio Network Director Daniel Anido and the network’s News Director Rodolfo Irago. A Madrid trial court sentenced both to 21 months in prison, a ban for them to work as journalists, an 18,000-euro fine and 130,000 euros in reparations.
The journalists were found guilty of “revealing secrets” stemming from an article published in 2003 on the network’s website that included a list of 78 names of people who allegedly registered irregularly as members of Partido Popular (Popular Party or PP) as part of a recruiting effort conducted by businessmen Francisco Bravo and Francisco Vázquez. A local Popular Party official at the time denounced those irregularities to the party’s leadership. Eventually charges were pressed against the journalists by a public prosecutor.
The sentence was handed down on December 23 by Judge Ricardo Rodríguez Fernández of Madrid’s Criminal Court No. 16.
For a court to punish, imprison, fine and stigmatize journalists for accurately informing the public about important political news not only defies logic and democratic values, but it also violates international human rights conventions to which Spain bound itself.
Surely accurate revelations in the media about alleged irregularities in a political party's registration are entitled in a democracy to full protection of the law. That protection was stripped judicially by extreme sanctions. The decision casts a pall, a chilling effect, on the free flow of information vital to self-governance. Unless it is promptly overturned, it creates a legal climate in which the Spanish public will be deprived of political information which they are entitled to receive.
Among the decision's multiple errors are these:
• The court wrote that distributing news on a broadcaster's website was at fault because the Internet “is not a social news medium," seemingly relegating the Internet to legal irrelevancy in the dissemination of news and information.
• The decision criticizes the focus and approach of the article, dictates how it should have been written, arrogates to the court the editorial function and improperly usurps the professional role of the editor.
Even though the privacy of party affiliation is protected by the Spanish Constitution, the fact that the alleged irregularities were first denounced by a party official makes this a newsworthy item. To punish, as Judge Rodriguez did, the accurate dissemination of significant political news, violates Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution, which acknowledges and protects “the rights to freely express and impart thoughts, ideas and opinions through both spoken and written word or any other means of distribution.”
The decisions and recommendations of practically all international human rights bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, insist that sanctions in cases related to press freedom issues must be dealt with in civil, never criminal, courts.
If this decision stands, such radical interpretation of the Spanish Criminal Code will function as a Damocles sword dangling over the head of any Spanish journalist, who clearly risks his or her freedom or financial ruin by merely fulfilling his or her duty to keep society informed about matters of public interest. The Cadena SER article about alleged irregularities in party affiliation is undeniably one of those matters, as the judge himself acknowledged.
In a democracy the privacy claims of individuals who are the legitimate subjects of political controversy yield to the overriding public interest in a full and accurate account of all aspects of that controversy.
Therefore, World Press Freedom Committee, keeping in mind that Messers Anido and Irago have announced their plans to appeal, urges the appeals court to declare this sentence null and void so that both journalists can continue fulfilling their duty to inform the public.
The journalists were found guilty of “revealing secrets” stemming from an article published in 2003 on the network’s website that included a list of 78 names of people who allegedly registered irregularly as members of Partido Popular (Popular Party or PP) as part of a recruiting effort conducted by businessmen Francisco Bravo and Francisco Vázquez. A local Popular Party official at the time denounced those irregularities to the party’s leadership. Eventually charges were pressed against the journalists by a public prosecutor.
The sentence was handed down on December 23 by Judge Ricardo Rodríguez Fernández of Madrid’s Criminal Court No. 16.
For a court to punish, imprison, fine and stigmatize journalists for accurately informing the public about important political news not only defies logic and democratic values, but it also violates international human rights conventions to which Spain bound itself.
Surely accurate revelations in the media about alleged irregularities in a political party's registration are entitled in a democracy to full protection of the law. That protection was stripped judicially by extreme sanctions. The decision casts a pall, a chilling effect, on the free flow of information vital to self-governance. Unless it is promptly overturned, it creates a legal climate in which the Spanish public will be deprived of political information which they are entitled to receive.
Among the decision's multiple errors are these:
• The court wrote that distributing news on a broadcaster's website was at fault because the Internet “is not a social news medium," seemingly relegating the Internet to legal irrelevancy in the dissemination of news and information.
• The decision criticizes the focus and approach of the article, dictates how it should have been written, arrogates to the court the editorial function and improperly usurps the professional role of the editor.
Even though the privacy of party affiliation is protected by the Spanish Constitution, the fact that the alleged irregularities were first denounced by a party official makes this a newsworthy item. To punish, as Judge Rodriguez did, the accurate dissemination of significant political news, violates Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution, which acknowledges and protects “the rights to freely express and impart thoughts, ideas and opinions through both spoken and written word or any other means of distribution.”
The decisions and recommendations of practically all international human rights bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, insist that sanctions in cases related to press freedom issues must be dealt with in civil, never criminal, courts.
If this decision stands, such radical interpretation of the Spanish Criminal Code will function as a Damocles sword dangling over the head of any Spanish journalist, who clearly risks his or her freedom or financial ruin by merely fulfilling his or her duty to keep society informed about matters of public interest. The Cadena SER article about alleged irregularities in party affiliation is undeniably one of those matters, as the judge himself acknowledged.
In a democracy the privacy claims of individuals who are the legitimate subjects of political controversy yield to the overriding public interest in a full and accurate account of all aspects of that controversy.
Therefore, World Press Freedom Committee, keeping in mind that Messers Anido and Irago have announced their plans to appeal, urges the appeals court to declare this sentence null and void so that both journalists can continue fulfilling their duty to inform the public.
Print
Journalists have always been endangered by powerful politicians.
Even in the US, the FCC can sanction and bring actions against those who broadcast information that they, the government, finds in violation of "national security" with the wide berth that phrase sometimes receives.
One public broadcaster in the US once was surprised that the US was listed as only the 10th freest news reporting structure in the world.
He asked his listeners to tell him what he couldn't broadcast. "Just name one thing," he said.
The listeners began to list them for him on call-in, and shortly he stopped and conceded the point.
If one looks at the judicial actions in the US over the past decade; and, the prohibitions that every on-air broadcaster is aware of, even to the words that can be used, we quickly understand that the US in many ways is even further down the list of freedom in terms of what we can hear and see relative to governance than Spain.
Just ask Dorothy Kilgallen.
Posted by: Gaston and Marie | December 27, 2009 at 04:06 AM
I'm not a Spanish citizen nor an English one or someone from the USA, but as a citizen of a member state of the E.U. and as true political and tortured refugee without rights, I was arrested in Spain and put in jail, completely illegel and without any right of the defense, for extradition to France for an opinion-crime which was no crime in Spain (and the E.U.!) so the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain decided in 2007. Compared to the case of the 2 journalists, it seems to me that my extradition is more shocking because as far as I understand this Ser-case, an unnecessary violation was made of the the privacy of party affiliation protected by the Spanish Constitution. On the contrary, in my case, it is the Spanish justice (public prosecutor and judges) who are violating the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain, i.e. the Spanish Constitution. But returning to Spain, no excuses and no help - humanitarian or legal - to let declare my extradition as illegal at the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal. And, of course, total silence in Spanish and other press and media, by f.i. Sr Enrique Gimbernat (El Mundo, 22 Enero de 2010 about the SER-case) ! herbertverbeke@gmail.com
Posted by: Herbert Verbeke | January 26, 2010 at 05:01 PM