The Broadcasting Authority's “disgraceful decision” to fine a media organisation because a presenter said he would refuse airtime to a “racialist” is nothing short of an egregious display of absurdity and an assault on the presenter's freedom of speech, PEN Malta said Thursday.

Penalising a station for rejecting Norman Lowell is a slap in the face to common decency and journalistic integrity. Racism should never be legitimised as a political view, and the authority's failure to recognise this is shameful, the orgsnisation said.

It was the Maltese courts that found Lowell guilty of inciting hatred and therefore, presenter Andrew Azzopardi’s term was not used frivolously or as an insult. But irrespective of that, Azzopardi has the fundamental right to free speech in declaring himself against hosting a Nazi sympathiser on his programme and cannot be penalised for saying so, it added.

This spineless move exposes the institution's blatant detachment from contemporary values and its alarming lack of commitment to combating hate. It is a shameful testament to the Broadcasting Authority's irrelevance and moral bankruptcy. It has now set a worrying precedent for Maltese broadcasters. Malta has enough racism as it is. The last thing we need is to institutionalise it, the statement said.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists also extended its solidarity with Andrew Azzopardi and RTK103 after they were fined by the Broadcasting Authority.

The IGM does not agree with the Authority's decision on a complaint made about the presenter by Imperium Europa and Norman Lowell.

The IGM considers that the comments that Azzopardi had made during the programme about Mr Lowell being a racist and xenophobic were based on facts that emerged from court judgments. Azzopardi also had the right to argue that people who are racist are not invited to his programme as this remains the station’s editorial discretion. It also falls within the parameters of freedom of speech.

We also understand that a person who is mentioned in a programme should have the right of reply if their intentions or actions are misrepresented or are subject to defamation, as the Media and Defamation Act says after all.

However, the IGM feels that the presenter based his argument on facts that emerged from court judgments and therefore there was no obligation for Lowell to be heard necessarily. Despite this, the station offered the right of reply on which there was no agreement.

If Lowell felt defamed, he could seek redress in court and not ask for a decision from the Broadcasting Authority which in this case acted as accuser and judge at the same time.

The IGM said it is also concerned that the secretary of the Authority's board, Dr. Adriano Spiteri, was an active member of Imperium Europa until a few years ago, a situation that casts doubt on the impartiality of the board, as much as it is worrying that the appointment of the board depends only on persons nominated by the two political parties represented in the parliament.

Therefore, the IGM cannot agree with this unjust decision which opens the door to a dangerous precedent where anyone who thinks they have suffered unfair treatment seeks satisfaction from the Authority.