President Moncef Marzouki’s Conference for the Republic Party (CPR), has proposed a bill to the National Constituent Assembly, which professional associations consider an obstruction of the freedom of media.

This new media bill comes in the midst of an increasing debate about media between professional associations and their representatives on the one hand, and the interim government and its partisan constituents on the other.

 President Moncef Marzouki’s Conference for the Republic Party (CPR), has proposed a bill to the National Constituent Assembly, which professional associations consider an obstruction of the freedom of media.

This new media bill comes in the midst of an increasing debate about media between professional associations and their representatives on the one hand, and the interim government and its partisan constituents on the other.

The associations believe that the government is in the process of re-dominating the media, whereas the government considers the media biased and subjective in dealing with a government that has been freely elected by the people. Government supporters and constituents have gone a step too far, considering the media a tool “in the hands of the counter-revolution”.

The debate between both parties has become a conflict between those defending the media’s autonomy and those attempting to control it and make it a tool, as was the case before the revolution.

Uncomfortably familiar wording

In this context, the CPR’s media bill has come to end the argument. It consists of three basic foundations: “freedom of expression is secured”, “it could be limited if that serves the public and individual interests”, but “that shouldn’t be taken too far”.

Many articles in the bill include financial and physical penalties against violating journalists. Article 48 for example states: “Disdaining the country’s religions shall be punisheable by six months imprisonment and a fine of 1,200 Dinars”. The bill, however, doesn’t explain the meaning of “Disdaining religions”. Such a loose term would limit the freedom of expression.

Article 49 says: “Propagating untrue news shall be punished by one year imprisonment and a fine of 1,200 Dinars (US $764).”  This penalty is severe because it is not always possible to verify some events where there might be limited access to information.  It also brings us to another issue, journalists’ right to make mistakes. The bill also includes many restraining articles with severe penalties that limit the freedom of expression.

It is worth mentioning that most of the media laws before the revolution, including the press law, involved restraining articles based on very loose terms that were used to limit the freedom of expression and imprison journalists. These terms included, for example, ‘national interest’ and ‘national security’.

The bill is thus based on a vision of a political party in power and it is not meant to end the current controversy between media professionals and the government.  It also imposes other questions about political parties’ right to propose draft laws of sectors with represented associations without referring to them.

It is true that media is a public concern that interests all of society’s political and civil constituents, but legislation and regulation should be carried out by the profession’s regulatory bodies.

Proposing a media bill by a political party means that other parties could propose bills in other fields without consulting professionals. That recalls the dissolved regime’s way of dealing with different sectors.

The freedom of the press is one of the revolution’s gains and no party may be credited for it or attempt to limit it under any pretext.

Regulating the media sector should be based on this freedom and professionals and their representative associations should be given the opportunity to assume their responsibilities in this regard.