The Republic of Defamation: When Media Freedom Becomes a Weapon
Syndicated on Medium: read the Medium copy. This page is the original and canonical version.
In Lebanon, defamation, insinuation and public accusation have become an almost daily feature of political and media life. A suspicion is aired in the evening; by morning it circulates as fact. No investigation has been opened, no evidence tested, no defence heard. Within hours, a name can be fused with words such as "corruption" or "laundering", and that association may last for years.
This is not an argument against media freedom. A free press is one of the few institutions still holding power to account in Lebanon, and it deserves protection. But media freedom has never been understood as an absolute right to destroy reputations. Article 13 of the Lebanese Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press "within the limits of the law". Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits restrictions that are provided by law and necessary, among other aims, "for respect of the rights or reputations of others". The question is not whether limits exist, but where they lie and whether they still work in a digital age.
From Oversight of Power to Trial on Air
There is a fundamental difference between saying that certain documents raise legitimate questions and declaring that a named person is "corrupt" or a "money launderer". The first is journalism doing its job: it demands answers and leaves the verdict to the competent authorities. The second is itself a verdict, delivered without a court, without a file and without the person concerned being heard.
Lebanese law recognises that a damaging allegation does not become harmless because it is phrased as a question. The new Media Law No. 69, dated 27 August 2026 and in force since its publication in the Official Gazette on 3 September 2026, defines in Article 107 insult (qadh) as an expression of contempt or abuse containing no specific allegation, and defamation (dhamm) as attributing to a person a matter that harms their honour, dignity or reputation, "even by way of doubt or question". "We are only asking" is no shield in law.
Reputational Harm Is Now Global
The consequences of a defamatory campaign no longer stay within Lebanon's borders. Banks, law firms, auditors and counterparties worldwide run background checks and due diligence that routinely include adverse media screening. Under the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), financial institutions apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence, with enhanced measures for politically exposed persons and higher-risk relationships. In practice, negative news is among the first things a compliance officer reads.
Lebanon's position makes this especially sensitive. Since October 2024 the country has been on the FATF list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring, the so-called "grey list", where it remained after the June 2026 plenary. FATF itself states that it does not call for enhanced due diligence to be applied to these jurisdictions and that its standards do not envisage "de-risking" entire classes of customers. Yet in a climate of heightened caution, a single defamatory headline attached to a Lebanese name can weigh heavily in a compliance file.
A later acquittal rarely erases the first page of search results. The accusation is read everywhere; the vindication, if it comes, is read by few. The campaign can thus impose an unofficial economic sanction that no court ordered and no court can easily lift.
When a Media Campaign Meets a Judicial File
The damage is greatest when a campaign coincides with a judicial proceeding. Public perception collapses the distinction between being summoned and being guilty: "if they were called in, it must be true." A summons, however, is a procedural step, not a finding.
Caution is needed on both sides. Assuming coordination between a campaign and an investigation without evidence would simply be another unfounded accusation. It is equally true that journalists and critics in Lebanon have themselves faced defamation proceedings that rights organisations considered intimidating. The governing principle is the same in both cases: no one should hold the power to destroy another person without evidence and without accountability.
The Silence That Becomes Evidence
Judges, officers and senior officials are often bound by professional secrecy, the confidentiality of investigations and a duty of reserve. They cannot answer publicly, and their silence is read as an admission.
The new law strengthens the hand of those who criticise public officials: Article 108 allows a defendant acting in good faith on a matter of public interest to produce evidence of truth even where doing so would breach investigative or professional secrecy. That protection serves accountability. It also sharpens an asymmetry: the critic may, in certain circumstances, lift the veil of secrecy; the targeted official usually may not.
Defamation Is Not False Denunciation
Two distinct wrongs are often confused. Defamation concerns the public attribution of a damaging matter. False denunciation (iftira'), under Article 403 of the Penal Code, is committed by a person who reports to the judicial authorities, or to an authority bound to inform them, an offence they know the accused did not commit, or who fabricates material evidence against them. Where a campaign is accompanied by knowingly false complaints, the conduct leaves the realm of opinion and becomes a serious offence against the administration of justice.
The Modern Face of Blackmail
Article 650 of the Penal Code punishes anyone who threatens to expose or reveal a matter liable to harm a person's standing or honour in order to obtain an unlawful benefit. Contemporary blackmail rarely announces itself. It may arrive through intermediaries who, after a wave of hostile coverage, quietly offer a "solution". Where that link between threatened exposure and an unlawful demand is proven, the issue is no longer media ethics; it is a crime.
The New Media Law: Real Progress, Open Questions
Law No. 69/2026 is genuine progress. Article 105 provides that the Penal Code provisions on insult and defamation do not apply to matters the new law governs; Article 107 channels them instead into civil liability under Articles 121 to 128 of the Code of Obligations and Contracts. Article 111 creates specialised civil chambers in each governorate. Article 114 prohibits pretrial detention for offences committed through the media and electronic means the law covers, and Article 113 removes the opinion and media offences it governs from the jurisdiction of the military court. The law also provides for correction, removal and reply, with recourse to the urgent-matters judge within 48 hours when a media institution refuses (Articles 99 to 103), and allows courts to halt a campaign that unlawfully exposes private life (Article 98).
Questions remain. Rights groups have noted that the reach of Article 105 regarding public officials is not entirely clear, and the law retains a criminal offence of deliberately fabricating and publishing false and harmful news (Article 104), whose breadth has drawn criticism.
The deeper question is one of time. A digital campaign can destroy a reputation in twenty-four hours, carried by algorithms, anonymous accounts and endless re-publication on platforms no single media institution controls. Courts, even expedited ones, move at another speed. Is civil liability alone enough to answer harm of that velocity and reach?
Proposals for Balance
In my view, a balanced framework should rest on a few clear distinctions and tools:
- Opinion versus factual accusation. Value judgements, however harsh, deserve wide protection; specific allegations of crime require a factual basis.
- Legitimate criticism versus invented crime. Severe criticism of public conduct is part of democratic life; fabricating an offence is not.
- Documented journalism versus campaigns. Work grounded in verifiable sources deserves protection; repetitive campaigns without a factual basis do not.
- Speed. The urgent-matters mechanism should extend in practice to campaigns spread across individual accounts and platforms, with power to order correction, removal and a halt to re-publication.
- Proportionate damages. Compensation should reflect reach, number of platforms, duration, and professional and banking harm.
- Digital justice. A judgment establishing that an accusation was false should reach the same audience as the accusation, with comparable prominence.
Conclusion
Lebanon does not, in my opinion, suffer from an excess of freedom. It suffers from a deficit of responsibility. Press freedom remains one of the country's last genuine strengths and must be defended. But freedom is not a licence to execute a person's reputation. Without clear limits and effective remedies, public accusation risks becoming a parallel judiciary, without judges, without procedure and without a right of defence, whose sentences are harsher and longer-lived than those of any court.