It is a fact that the freedom of speech and the press were never particularly held in that high a regard by Greek judges. But at least there was the impression that preemptive censorship had been a thing of the past for many decades in our country. Now though, we have the outrageous decision of a first instance court that held that the journalistic research of a television program regarding the Farmakonisi tragedy “violates the privacy principles of the judicial investigation” that it is handling…
What should we remind the judge? That there are numerous times when journalist investigations have not only helped, but have contributed decisively in the resolution of serious cases? That almost all ongoing judicial investigations of scandals were prompted by revelations in the press? That there are quite a few cases that would have remained unresolved if the media did not take an interest in them? Or perhaps a supervisor should remind the judge that preemptive censorship is characteristic of suppressive and obscurantist regimes?
Unfortunately this is not the first time that judges adopt such a mentality… We should remember how books and theatrical performances were banned in the past. Furthermore, a couple days ago the prosecutor ordered an investigation over the publication of a ruling that had already been published in the government gazette, on the grounds that state secrets were being revealed. A few weeks earlier a comic blogger was convicted because he trivialized religious beliefs. The worst of all is that they do not even take into consideration the multitude of European court rulings against our country for violation of the freedom of speech and they insist upon making arbitrary interpretations of the Constitution, the laws and international regulations.
It is a fact that these arbitrary and undemocratic practices are facilitated by the Constitution’s contradictory and vague distinction between print and broadcasting media, since “television and radio are under the direct control of the state”. That is the say that the television program that was banned could have been published freely in a newspaper, theoretically at least…
Beyond the problems with the Constitution though, the judiciary is constantly suspicious and troubled by the freedom of expression. That is a serious matter that leads to deeply undemocratic decision such as the one yesterday. Perhaps it is time for those in charge of justice to see what is going on in other European countries and expand the horizons and criteria of the judges.
TO VIMA
