The fine and suspended sentence handed down to a 24-year-old for making anti-Pope comments on Facebook has exposed misconceptions that users have the freedom to spout whatever comes to mind online.

Karl Farrugia, who posted a "joke" - wishing somebody shot the Pope in his hands, feet and side to imitate Christ's wounds - on the Facebook group 'No To Pope Benedict XVI In Malta', was sentenced last Thursday.

This judgement, closely monitored by researchers of new media, was considered heavy-handed by some and led to online comments that Big Brother was watching and accusations that Malta was a totalitarian state.

However, when contacted, lawyer and columnist Andrew Borg Cardona as well as blogger and media lecturer Fr Joe Borg both warned that the internet is not an extension of people's living room.

Dr Borg Cardona said people had to mind what they said in public, whether it was online or on the street, because while they had the freedom to say what they liked they were not permitted to break the law.

The ruling raised several questions such as had the police overreacted by arraigning Mr Farrugia? And if not, why were the police not prosecuting those inciting racial hatred online?

A case in point is a comment posted by a Maltese user on a Youtube video about illegal immigration which calls on co-nationals to kill immigrants.

Dr Borg Cardona confirmed that those fomenting racial hatred could be prosecuted in the same way; and "even more so".

Asked if the law should be changed, Dr Borg Cardona said a provision was required that prevented people making overt incitements to violence, especially against heads of state and religions.

"It would have to be applied sparingly and when there is clear and present danger, not when there's a facetious remark like this," he said, referring to Mr Farrugia's anti-Pope remark.

When it was pointed out that Facebook as a website was registered in the US, Dr Borg Cardona said this irrelevant since a publication was a publication, irres-pective of where and how it originated.

"Simply publishing via the Net does not grant any immunity," he said.

Several users compared this judgement to China's online censorship, but Dr Borg Cardona said the ruling was simply the application of "a specific and, some might say, antiquated provision of the law", and in no way did this equate with China and its repression.

His advice to those commenting on the internet is: "Be careful. Say what you want while respecting the law and, more importantly, the individuals you're commenting about. You have the right to freedom of expression, but they have the right to their own integrity and reputation."

This advice was echoed by Fr Borg, who urged people to be careful and treat the online space with respect.

Users were often deluded, he said, into believing that posting comments online was the same as passing a remark in a bar, when really and truly they were broadcasting their message to the world.

"You have to be careful not to treat the internet as your personal space. There is the misconception that there is no form of regulation online. You have to act responsibly," he said, pointing to society's ambivalence on how this space should be treated.

Fr Borg said fuelling racial hatred was in a way more dangerous than Mr Farrugia's comment since the Pope was afforded all the security while immigrants had no such protection.

Anthropologist Mark-Anthony Falzon said the key issue in this case was clearly the demarcation between public and private.

"I don't think anyone would argue that we should be policing private conversations - so it's the public ones that matter. It's a distinction that cuts through many areas of social life, and which may be linked to class, gender, and so on. It's also one we learn culturally, over time," he said.

Since the internet and social networking sites were relatively new, people were still learning how to draw distinctions between public and private. To complicate matters, the physical-spatial dynamics of online activity tended to lull people into a false sense of security.

"In a nutshell, we're looking at a juxtaposition between private space and public interaction. Clearly, many people find this hard to navigate and manage," he said.

Dr Falzon pointed out that due to the sheer volume of online activity, it was impossible for the state and police to keep track of everything. This meant policing was going to be very selective.

"So, although I would hesitate quantitatively to put Malta in the league of, say, China or Iran, conceptually this case is similar to what goes on there," he said.

"In China it may be political dissent, in Iran 'liberal' attitudes to morality, in Malta offence to the Catholic Church. The key word here is selectivity, which champions would probably call by its euphemism, 'discretion'."