By the same token, a sanction such as this is liable to hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog. In New York Times vy Sullivan 376 U.S 254 (1964) Brennan, J. observed that: ...erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must he protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the “breathing space” that they need .... to survive See elso Castells v. Spain, Application No, 11798/85, ECHR decision of 24 April 1997, where the court while ruling that the applicant’s right to free speech had been violated, held that: ...the dominant position which the Government occupies makes it necessary for it to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means are available for replying to the unjustified attacks and criticisms of its adversaries or the media. In Sullivans case (supra) Brennan, J. went on to hold that: “A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of ail his factual assertions — and to do so on pain of libel judgments comparable “self-censorship.” virtually unlimited in amount — leads to a Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the 43