Tackling illegality

Freedom of speech

Maybe it should not have happened like that but that is the way it happened and we must take it up from there.

A few days ago, MP Claudette Buttigieg complained in Parliament about her fear that photos of her at the seaside could appear on the social media with added derogatory remarks. A sort of a media storm ensued. However, Ms Buttigieg’s speech served to show that concern over the Wild West that the Internet has become is no longer the preserve of one side of the national divide but has now spread out to the other side as well.

It would be preferable to approach such a delicate and controversial subject from the national, rather than the partisan, point of view. And to do it structurally rather than piecemeal or by starting off from the not so important point.

In our opinion, what is most important is to establish that the entire internet especially its presence in the social media, blogs, etc are not outside the jurisdiction of Maltese laws.

This is still a rather weak point and maybe one could resort to internet postings based in jurisdictions outside of Malta. If that is the case, one must see how to tackle that. But let’s be clear: Freedom of speech is not and must never cover

Editor’s pick

up for hate speech or vilification of persons. Just as the libel laws exist for the protection of the weak, so too the laws of the land must bring the rule of law into what has rapidly become the new mass media in Malta just as it has done abroad.

Malta may be an island but it is not unconnected to the world. Other countries have passed through this social media innovation and have adapted their legislation accordingly. Obviously, there are countries with draconian legislation where it involves public figures (what Ms Buttigieg was complaining about) and the country with the hardest laws in this regard is undoubtedly France. One remembers how difficult it was for photos of President Hollande on his way to an amorous tryst to get published in France. So too were photos of a topless (at least) Princess Kate in a chateau in France.

But we would like to point out at this point that there are issues that are even more urgent than the portrayal of public figures on blogs etc.

The first issue is hate speech. Hate speech has no place in a democratic society where the rule of law is sovereign. One must first of all define what is meant by hate speech. Our legislation, in our opinion, must be upgraded to eradicate all kinds of hate speech from our midst be that racist, partisan or personal.

We must not be afraid to tackle this issue because we are tampering, or people tell us we are tampering, with free speech. The exercise of the right to free speech does not give one the right to incite hatred of any kind.

Consequent upon this, we urge a national debate on the retention of anonymous comments. Up till a few years ago, papers in Malta allowed anonymous comments or comments signed by a nom de plume. Then all papers except one dropped that and that is how it still is today.

But then the internet was created and blogs and Facebook and online comment spaces were introduced and the anonymous comments crept back. On some comment areas, like ours, they are monitored, but on others they are free.

One must be sensitive to the public concern that any monitoring is a form of censorship, but if the alternative is to allow derogatory or libellous or vilifying or racist comments, then better monitoring than no monitoring.

The basic principle must be that nothing that is public is outside the law. And the new means of communication cannot risk, in this time and age, to set up themselves as outside and above the law.