Freedom of speech in the RD

Adrian Bye · Jun 2, 2003

Hi guys,

Recently there have been two cases gaining a lot of attention in the US regarding freedom of speech vs privacy issues:

http://nytimes.com/2003/06/02/national/02INTE.html (Miss Vermont's personal background)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200305\CUL20030530e.html - barbara streisand (taking photos of Barbara Streisand's house)

What are the free speech laws for the DR? As I understand it in the US, I can generally say whatever I want as long as it is the truth and not a subjective opinion.

eg I can say:

"this person did not deliver the service I expected"

but I cannot say:

"this person is dishonest and has lied to me every time we met, I would not recommed anyone do business with them".

How does the law work regarding libel and slander vs freedom of speech in the DR?

I've gotten the impression it is more restricted than in the US, and that intent applies somehow. Can anyone clarify?

Adrian

Fabio J. Guzman · Jun 3, 2003

Freedom of speech is a right recognized under the Dominican Constitution:

Art. 8, Section 6: "Toda persona podr?, sin sujeci?n a censura previa, emitir libremente su pensamiento mediante palabras escritas o por cualquier otro medio de expresi?n, gr?fico u oral. Cuanto el pensamiento expresado sea atentatorio a la dignidad y a la moral de las personas, al orden p?blico o a las buenas costumbres de la sociedad, se impondr?n las sanciones fijadas por las leyes."

[Free translation]

"Every person shall have the right, without being subject to previous censorship, to express freely his thoughts in writing or by any other means, graphic or oral. When the thoughts expressed constitute an attempt against the dignity and the morals of a person, against public order or society?s morals, the penalties established by law shall apply.?

The law in question is Law 6132 of 1962 and articles 367-377 of the Criminal Code.

I am far from an expert on this area of Dominican law, but I do know that intent is a requirement for libel.

Adrian Bye · Jun 4, 2003

Hi Fabio,

Thanks for your reply.

From what you said it sounds like you can say whatever you want provided that

- it doesn't offend somebody privately
- it doesn't offend any group of people

Given that legal situations around freedom of speech usually involve one of these two areas, it seems to me that we don't really have freedom of speech here.

I do believe that we should be able - and encouraged - to tell the truth at all times. I also think people might behave a little differently if they knew their actions could be publicly discussed in a protected way as long as the description is true and accurate.

I find this ironic given the overall amount of freedom and liberty in this country.

Do you have any comments on how this tends to work out in practice?

Adrian

Ken · Jun 4, 2003

It might have been better to ask questions instead of making assumptions, then drawing conclusions on those assumptions.

Where did he say that, for example, telling the truth was against the law?

Adrian Bye · Jun 4, 2003

Situations where telling the truth is against the law - taken directly from the law itself:

"When the thoughts expressed ['free speech'] constitute an attempt against the dignity and the morals of a person, against public order or society?s morals, the penalties established by law shall apply"

Seems pretty clear cut to me. You can tell the truth as much as you want, until someone doesn't like it.

Ken · Jun 5, 2003

I'm no lawyer, and it is clear that you aren't either. But I certainly don't read that statement to say that you can be punished for telling the truth.

Truth, of course, is verifiable fact, not personal perception/opinon.

Adrian Bye · Jun 5, 2003

Nope, I'm not a lawyer, but I did spend quite a while working with an internet law organization, Creative Commons, with some of the top lawyers in the US (we're working to get copyright law fixed to work better for people online). I follow tech legal issues quite closely.

Freedom of speech doesn't need to be protected if it offends nobody. Thats just being polite, which is usually enough.

But if Ken takes $10 from me, and won't give it back, to me it seems I should be able to say "hey, that guy Ken promised to give back my $10, but he didn't", as long as its the truth.

But that could be considered offensive or upsetting for Ken, so in the RD I can't talk about it at all.

N'est pas?

Adrian

Pib · Jun 5, 2003

I am not putting words in Mr. Guzman's mouth, but I believe it all means "if you can prove it is true it doesn't matter if it offends someone".

Hope that helps.

Ken · Jun 6, 2003

adrianb said:
But if Ken takes $10 from me, and won't give it back, to me it seems I should be able to say "hey, that guy Ken promised to give back my $10, but he didn't", as long as its the truth.

But that could be considered offensive or upsetting for Ken, so in the RD I can't talk about it at all.

Like Pib, I'll let Fabio Guzman have the final word, but I continue to believe you started out with a belief that there isn't freedom of speech in the DR and are manufacturing support for that belief.

If you are owed money, and can prove it, I seriously doubt that you can be sued for "upsetting" or "offending" the person owing you money.

I assume from your first post that you live in the DR. I don't think you can go around claiming someone there owes you money unless you are prepared to prove it. At least I certainly hope not. Otherwise anyone could decide at any time that you owed them money and damage your reputation by their spurious claim.

Fabio J. Guzman · Jun 12, 2003

Telling the truth does not constitute libel. Also, intent to do harm must be present. The Constitution provides the general framework for freedom of speech; Law 6132 of 1962 and articles 367-377 of the Criminal Code the specifics.

Adrian Bye · Jun 12, 2003

From the DR1 newsletter

Digital journalist arrested by security forces

The International Federation of Digital Journalists (FIPED) denounced the arrest by security forces (DNI) of journalist Marino Zapete Corniel, saying that freedom-of-the-press laws in the Dominican Republic are being violated. The federation says that the arrest was made without any prosecutor?s order.

Zapete has achieved much notoriety for his articles published in Los Nuevos Tiempos Digital, a publication widely circulated by email to a large mailing list in the Dominican Republic.

A recent issue carried a report on Zapete?s visit to the area of the new Jarabacoa mountain home of the President.

Speaking at a press conference in Miami, Daniel Efra?n Raimundo, the director of Los Nuevos Tiempos Digital, said: ?We support, defend and applaud the courage of the Dominican journalist, at times when the other media are silent accomplices in the case of Baninter and the mansions that President Mej?a is building in Jarabacoa and another zone near the Dominican capital.?

For a copy in Spanish of his most recent article and to request an email copy of his story on the Jarabacoa house, see http://www.cafebambu.com/

DCfred · Jun 25, 2003

Well in the United States I think you have to prove "malice", which is hard to do under our sytem, and then you have to prove any economic and emotional damages you may have suffered.

In the DR, you have to be careful. You may end up in Jail. Look at that journalist that reported the issue of the president's Jarabacoa house. That is why the media in Sto Dgo has been very slow to report recent events regarding Baninter and the economic fiasco.

Search

Search

Freedom of speech in the RD

Adrian Bye

Bronze

Fabio J. Guzman

DR1 Expert

Adrian Bye

Bronze

Ken

Platinum

Adrian Bye

Bronze

Ken

Platinum

Adrian Bye

Bronze

Pib

Goddess

Ken

Platinum

Fabio J. Guzman

DR1 Expert

Adrian Bye

Bronze

DCfred

New member