Appeal court confirms unfair sentence for comments posted on website

An Abu Dhabi appeal court today upheld a September ruling suspending the magazine Hetta for a month and sentencing its editor,Ahmed Mohammed bin Ghareeb, to a fine of 20,000 dirhams (3,755 euros) and pay the Abu Dhabi Media Company 10,000 dirhams (1,877 euros) in damages.

It was the second time that an appeal court has upheld the sentence, imposed on 7 September 2009 under articles 1.3/b and 372 of the criminal code, articles 79 and 86 of the Publications Act and article 16 of the Cyber-Crime Act.

It was previously upheld by an appeal court on 13 January, but Abu Dhabi's highest court ruled on 18 April that Bin Ghareeb's appeal should be examined again.

The suit was prompted by an article by Al Bourini about Abu Dhabi TV (a station owned by the Abu Dhabi Media Company) that was posted on the site on 4 May 2009. It was not so much the article itself, headlined "Abu Dhabi TV: a UAE television in name only," that upset the Abu Dhabi Media Company as the allegedly defamatory comments posted by visitors to site, for which the plaintiff held Hetta responsible.

Bin Ghareeb has decided to appeal again, this time to Abu Dhabi's highest court.

Reporters Without Borders condemns this judicial harassment, which is aimed at gagging the magazine, and calls for the sentence to be overturned.

14.01.2010

Court orders an independent website closed for a month, upholds fine on editor

An Abu DHabi appeal court yesterday upheld the fine of 20,000 dirhams (3,755 euros) and damages of 10,000 dirhams (1,877 euros) that a lower court imposed on Ahmed Bin Gharib, the editor of the Hetta.com news website in a defamation suit brought by the Abu Dhabi Media Company over comments about alleged corruption posted by readers. The court also ordered the site closed for a month. Gharib intends to appeal to the country's highest court.

"The decision taken in this case against an independent news website is clearly disproportionate," Reporters Without Borders said. "Why close an entire website for a month when only a few comments posted by readers were at issue and only its editor was being blamed? And before going to court, why didn't the plaintiff ask Hetta.com's management to remove the comments in a spirit of conciliation?"

The press freedom organisation added: "The way this case has been handled is indicative of a desire to make an example out of the website, in order to intimidate anyone thinking of raising serious corruption issues in the future."

A Hetta.com article about alleged "administrative corruption" and "embezzlement" within the Abu Dhabi Media Company prompted a debate among the site's readers (see the release: http://www.rsf.org/Court-to-hear-website-s-appeal.html). There was nothing defamatory about most of the comments although the court ruled that they had defamed the plaintiff. The severity of the court's sentence despite the legitimacy of most of the comments raises questions about the influence that the company may have had over the court.

Reporters Without Borders contacted the Abu Dhabi Media Company and the Abu Dhabi authorities to ask them to withdraw the complaint when the appeal was heard or to quash the sentences on the grounds that it was in the public interest for free expression to be respected.

The United Arab Emirates is on the list of countries that are "under surveillance" by Reporters Without Borders because of measures they have taken that could pose a threat to online freedom of expression.

Visit Hetta.com: http://www.hetta.com/new/index.php