Journalists Fined for Disinformation and Defamation

On August 17, 2010 Phnom Penh Municipal Court of First Instance opened a hearing of journalists for Meato Phum Newspaper for disinformation and defamation in accordance with the complaint by Meas Sopheap, chief of military Battalion 204 who was also alleged of illegally logged, kept and transported timbers to neighboring country [Vietnam].

The hearing was under the presence of Trial Judge Din Sivuthy and Phnom Penh Court Prosecutor Hieng Sopheak. Chea Chan Parkad, the publisher of Meato Phum Newspaper and Sun Sophal, the editor in chief, and the plaintiff, Meas Sophea left the court process the hearing in absentia. However, Soy Sokhun, the lawyer for the two defendants, appeared to defend the case. Other journalists and observers also presented in the trial.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Din Sivuthy announced the verdict that Chea Chan Parkad and Sun Sophal were found guilty of disinformation and defamation. The judge ordered them to pay 2 million riels (US$476) as a fine and 4 million riels ($952) as the compensation to the damage of Meas Sophea.

The case was stemmed from 2009, related to the article in question aimed at Meas Sophea, the chief of Military Battlion 204 in Snoul district, Kratie province. The article wrote Meas Sophea was involved with purchasing wood, storing it at a local villager’s house and then transporting to sell out through Cambodia-Vietnam border; and raised the question of having a crackdown on illegal timber smuggling in a local village. This led to a lawsuit against these journalists a month after the article had been published.

Related to the case as well, Mr. Soy Sokhun said that Meas Sophea had not asked the newspaper to correct the article in advance. The case should not have solved through the court at all. This showed the restriction on freedom of expression. He felt disappointed with the conviction and said it was unjust to find his clients guilty.

Om Chandara, president of the Khmer Journalists Friendship Association, who also monitored the hearing, criticized the judgment and further commented that the ruling would dishearten journalists from recording stories about illegal logging conducted by powerful people. It would put restriction on professional journalists to publish real stories or the fact.