PRIVACY VERSUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN
Freedom of speech prevails most of the time
Free press is a cornerstone of our democracy. Journalists report on bad things that happen in our community. They want to know what happened, why it happened and who were involved. It is custom to mention suspects by full name, but journalists should at all times make efforts to remain impartial and to protect a person’s private life from unjustified or sensational exposure to the public.
It goes without saying that the public interest for information and the interest of the suspects’ privacy must be balanced. If the suspect is a juvenile, it seems appropriate that its name be shortened, especially because juvenile criminal cases are not just about punishment but about resocialization as well. If the suspect is an adult, it is – in principle – legally acceptable to mention his full name as well as background information which seems to be of relevance. The public opinion (sense of justice) in the Dutch Caribbean differs from the European part of the Kingdom: in Holland many believe it is not-done to publish the suspect’s full details, but in the Dutch Caribbean (like in most countries) this is quite acceptable (see the Amigoe – in Dutch).
Freedom of speech and the public’s right to know are just as important as the right to a fair trial. However, those charged with a crime are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No trial by media thus.
It should be noted that there is a difference between what is legally acceptable and what is journalistically fair. Although from a legal point of view mentioning the suspect’s full name and background details is generally acceptable, despite his right of privacy, there always remains the question whether it is fair (or ethical) in a particular case. But whether it is fair (or ethical) is not a legal question.
Karel Frielink
Curacao-based Attorney (lawyer) / Partner
