Marco Ameglio's right of reply
by Eric Jackson
Suppose that the Catholic weekly, Panorama Catolico, publishes an editorial
warning the faithful to avoid Satan's legions like the plague.
Under a proposed new press law written by Arnulfista legislator Marco Ameglio,
and co-sponsored, among others, by his PRD colleagues Vicente Magallón
and Franz Wever, both of whom got to where they are as taxi syndicate leaders,
that could get the Catholic newspaper and its editor in big trouble.
If a Satanist objected to the Panorama Catolico editorial, she or he would
have a right under Ameglio's proposal to write a reply, which the Catholic
weekly would be required by law to publish within three days. If the reply
came in on a Monday, then Panorama Catolico would have to publish a special
edition just to air the Satanist point of view, or else it would be committing
a crime by not publishing the reply within three days.
Is that the intent of Mr. Ameglio, or his colleagues Mr. Magallón
and Mr. Wever? I very much doubt it, but that's what the law they are proposing
says.
Ameglio's proposal bears the hallmarks of intellectual laziness. He clearly
did little to think through the consequences of his legislation. Indirectly,
this says a lot about Panama's educational standards and the child rearing
practices of this country's wealthier classes.
Ameglio's proposal is also based upon the assumption that only the daily
media count, which belies a bias towards the rich. His proposal is based upon
the interests of politicians and the wealthier of the media, without a thought
about the weeklies and other less profitable means of communication. That
Magallón and Wever also think this way is evidence of how far they
have strayed from their working class origins, and from representing the interests
of those who can't afford to exercise their freedom of the press by creating
a daily newspaper.
I am not opposed to a right of reply as such. The Panama News has, with
one exception, published every irate letter from a displeased reader that
we have ever received. The one that we didn't publish was a rude personal
attack on one of the journalists who wrote for us, and though I would have
run it, our publisher at the time decided not to. It was a reasonable decision,
but I think that the better practice is to allow people who feel offended
by something that has been published to have their say.
However, the right to reply could be abused. For example, a large part of
Panama's English-speaking community is of Afro-Caribbean origin, and we try
to cover news and cultural events of importance to this black community. I
noticed a while back, while surfing through white racist websites, that a
Florida-based neo-Nazi group called Stormfront listed a Panama affiliate.
So if they decide to activate their stormtroopers for a letter writing campaign
in Panama, will The Panama News be required to publish a slew of letters containing
vulgar racist abuse, pursuant to the right of reply, every time that we cover
the West Indian community? Even if we run such screeds, will Nazis be able
to shut us down because we publish only twice per month?
I notice that some journalists for the dailies have taken a stand against
the right of reply in principle, and I can surely understand if Panorama Catolico
doesn't want to give space to Satanists, or if a Jewish publication refuses
to print Nazi stuff. There is substantial validity to the argument that freedom
to state an opinion includes the right to remain silent.
Now somebody who supports the Ameglio proposal may well argue that the law
wouldn't be used to force Satanist views on the Catholic press or Nazi propaganda
on The Panama News, because prosecutors and judges would never enforce the
law on behalf of devil worshippers or skinheads. That, my friends, opens another
can of worms, because it's an argument that presumes that there is no equal
justice under law, but only a legal system dominated by those who have power
and influence in this society.
If Marco Ameglio wants to temper the effects of unfair journalism by enshrining
a right to reply in Panamanian law, he should put more thought and labor into
the effort than he has shown to date. If he does that, I might even support
it.
