Freedom of speech should be considered sacred in a democracy. That’s where we all start from. But then reservations are raised. Like with: Freedom of speech should not mean freedom for hate speech. Or: There have to be remedies against the malicious spread of bad news that undermines the reputation of people and institutions.

The second point raises interesting arguments. Any remedy cannot serve to muzzle those who publish information about unacceptable acts by business concerns or in the public administration.

Mention is however made of those who in order to scare reporters and make them shut up, open libel cases in foreign jurisdictions where the heaviest fines prevail. So, it is said that there is need for laws that do not recognize decisions in this sense taken by other jurisdictions.

Such an approach could involve legal complications, in addition to which a comment related to the globalisation of the means of communication might also apply. It is similar in scope to the arguments which are advanced about those countries having low rates of company taxes in order to attract entities seeking to reduce their tax burden.

Whoever is out to spread malicious news could do it from countries where libel penalties are very low. When done through social media, it would still have a global reach.

***

Stress test

In the banking sector, the practice has been adopted by which regulatory authorities insist on running tests to estimate how banks could be affected by negative changes in their financial position. These stress tests, as they are called, are useful because they allow both bank supervisors and managers to detect in good time the direction of any arising changes for the better or the worse in a given situation.

The same approach should be adopted for national economies, not least that of Malta.

We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation, enjoying at present very high economic growth rates that for long decades we never reached, and for so long a period. If this goes on – equally if it tapersoff slowly, or all at once – the directors of public entities and the heads of private enterprises can refer to no precedents from the past in order to face up to the future.

It would be a useful initiative to run stress tests of the economy and immediately publish the results (though admittedly, this latter practice has gone quite out of fashion recently). 

***

Banks and European directives

The news media featured a story about how tariff rates would be increasing for the usage of bank ATMs by customers wanting to withdraw money held in another bank. According to the banks, the reason for this was the implementation of new security measures under an EU bank directive, which increased the cost of organizing such a transaction, so that the payment for it also needed to be raised.

From my office, a check was held with the European Commission on the matter. Officials there denied that the measures cited had anything to do with ATMs or even less with any increase of their running costs. The Central Bank of Malta confirmed the same thing.

Are banks going to introduce this tariff or not? How are they justifying it exactly? If the reason is truly the one featured in the media, why are Malta banks allowed to bamboozle citizens in this manner?