Our colleagues at the Times of Malta on Monday reported that they had been hit by a court temporary injunction from a private company to stop them from publishing an article.
The Times said that Papaya Ltd had filed an urgent court injunction the day after receiving questions from the newspaper about an article that it was planning to write.
The company claimed that the article - which the Times said had not even been written yet - would breach anti-money laundering secrecy laws, the newspaper said.
Papaya Ltd is an e-money firm based in Malta. It has been in the headlines in the past for not particularly good reasons: the FIAU fined the company €279,000 for what it described as "minimal" regard towards its anti-money laundering obligations, and there were also questions raised about one of its directors after he was sanctioned by the United States over alleged links with Russia.
Papaya Ltd is appealing the FIAU fine, and the director in question is no longer with the company.
The injunction filed against the Times is tantamount to a gagging order: a shameless effort at censoring the free press by a private company which, clearly, has something to lose by the press doing its job.
It is a shameless and unprecedented legal move. We in the media are used to the risk of companies threatening and potentially going through with legal action after a story is published - but to take legal action about a story before that story even makes it to print is something new, and something deeply concerning.
Acceptance of such an injunction would set a dangerous precedent not just for journalism, but for the public's right to being informed.
It is already hard enough for the public to stay effectively informed due to the proliferation of false information and policies that make it difficult to gain answers from authorities - introducing a legal precedent that effectively gags newspapers from reporting on business interests would be another nail in the proverbial coffin.
The Institute for Maltese Journalists is right to express its deep concern about the matter and to highlight that the injunction effectively involves suspending freedom of expression, a human right that is protected by the Constitution and the European Convention for Human Rights.
"Such legal actions pose a serious threat to press freedom and the public's right to know. Investigative journalism is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. By holding power to account, it serves the public interest and upholds transparency. Silencing the press through legal injunctions undermines the essential role of journalism as the fourth pillar of democracy," IGM said in a statement.
"A free press must remain free to investigate, question, and publish without fear of retribution or censorship. Anything less is a disservice to democracy itself," IGM said.
They couldn't have put it any better.