Ariadne Massa
Facebook ruling exposes online misconceptions
Authorities urged to prosecute over racist comments
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'."
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M. Degiorgio
May 24th 2010, 10:47
What would be the case if it was a foreigner being outside Malta who had written this? If the Maltese court's jurisdiction is to cover far beyond what is published or written in Malta itself as in this case (Face book is not Maltese neither in Malta), then I should understand that the Maltese courts are to prosecute everyone all over the world who's articles are publishes and can be read by the Maltese on the Internet and which might be judged offensive here? If not it would seem to me as being discriminative towards Maltese citizens or residents! Where are we going, where will it all end?
J.Borg
May 24th 2010, 07:45
As far as i know the law cannot intervene with something hosted on a server abroad. This is the reason all the piracy websites are still up and running because they host them in places like china where piracy is legal. This thing is getting too annoying could the police please make use of my taxes in a good way not this rubbish ?
D.Galea
May 24th 2010, 09:42
WAIT!! In time they will start prosecuting people 'en masse' for mp3 and avi downloads... wait and see... I bet they're going to be more popular then traffic sittings.
Ramon Casha
May 24th 2010, 06:35
"...both warned that the internet is not an extension of people's living room."
But is it an extension of the Maltese courts? The entire internet?
What if I send an email to be published by The New York Times, or Australia's The Age? What if I post an online comment on BBC's website? Do all of these publications fall under Maltese jurisdiction?
If the answer is no, then what makes Facebook different? Where do we draw the line to determine what is Malta's responsibility and what isn't?
Also, since the courts seem to have categorised Facebook as a newspaper (ie, under the press act), what legal implications does this have for the individuals who create a facebook group? Are they legally considered to be editors or publishers? Can they be prosecuted for letting such comments be published?
I am no legal expert, but I feel that this ruling opens up a rather large can of worms.
Karl Consiglio
May 23rd 2010, 23:29
What is the maximum amount of people allowed for a conversation to be recognized as a "private" conversation? After what amount of people joining the conversation does the matter cross the line/seize to be private, and thereby becomes public?
albert leone ganado
May 23rd 2010, 23:10
Mark Falzon is right in that people do not realise that anything you write on the web is an open permanent record which even if it does not lead to immediate silly prosecution or should I say persecution will come back to haunt you sometime in the future.
So blog writers beware and think twice before expressing yourself on the web for it might be brought up against you in future in a job application or by an employer or worse still you might find yourself being permanently frisked at borders.
However if you are foolish enough to ignore my expert advise , if ever challenged by any authority never admit authorship but always deny it was you , and claim identity theft. No fair court will be able to prove beyond doubt that it was you rather than somebody who spoofed you.
Joseph Micallef
May 23rd 2010, 21:48
Can anybody tell me why Norman Lowell was allowed to express racial hatred, anti-semitism and even pro-Nazi sentiments on National tv, then? I mean this man was fined because of a comment on facebook. How worse was Normal Lowell tirade on tv then!!!? With the same measures he should have been given a prison sentence (and not a suspended one I mean)!
Martin Cassar
May 23rd 2010, 17:05
Dr Falzon says-"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,"
‘People have a right to be protected, ideas, symbols and beliefs do not.’ Says our prominent freedom of expression’s apologist Mr. Lou Bondi.
Those are beautiful words indeed! but are they actually unconditionally implemented in reality?Do these words constitute universal values? Is freedom of expressions used as a political tool? Should right of protection be unlimited?
Can a business print and sells stickers reads ‘I LOVE HITLER’ or ‘I AM A FASCIST’? Or a sticker reads Can I have any of such stickers on my private car windscreen please? Can I qualifies such stickers as a work of art?
I am European to the core and could never be counted as a Holocaust’s denial-my question: would MEPA give me a permission to establish a Kebab outlet with business trade mark [Shoah]? Such exercises are prohibited across Europe and are very much welcomed in Iran. Shall I take it then Iran is a step forward as far as freedom of expressions is concerned?
KJ Tabone
May 23rd 2010, 15:41
The 'net was much more pleasant and free before all this social networking came along. Opinions have been expressed on the web for years, only now they are available for people who don't necessarily understand it to see. It's a pity.
Guido Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 14:17
Allow me to point out to the contributors on line. This whole matter pushed me and hopefully all my family, to abdicate in it's totally and offically from the church. I happen to be Karl's father and proud of it whom i know did it as a joke, maybe sick but a joke. The peace and moral of my family was brought down to zero. You do not know what we went through these past 46days. Please stop and go to recieve your holy communion in peace, jekk mintix poggut, that is.
Thanking you all
Robert Agius
May 23rd 2010, 13:07
Can someone explain expressing a wish about something can be used as 'instigation'. If this is the case then something is alarmingly wrong. There is a difference between calling out for violence and expressing what one wishes. This would also be phrased differently using modals such as must, should, have to etc. However, I guess It would be equally alarming that one should be punished because of lack of language skills :P
Oh! and how about every time one watches the news because a few thousand Muslims are angry about something, such as a drawing, and aired on TV (I reckon that it is viewed more than a particular facebook group) shouting things like 'kill all infidels' etc.
China, Iran... and Malta indeed.
D.Galea
May 23rd 2010, 12:53
And this is supposed to justify the 500Euro plus suspended sentence? This is like saying you get ants in the house so to stop them all you kill ONE ant with fire, stone, knives and everything you can possible imagine within your power so maybe the other ants would think twice about staying in your home, is this how deterrent is defined in this "country"?. This instead of simply using a spray over the whole colony but it seems such is the flawed Maltese judicial logic.
C. Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 12:28
Saying something deemed *offensive*, perhaps *jokingly*, (even though I do not condone it), but without even the remotest thought of carrying it out...will cost you 550E.
Actually committing a more devious crime, like cutting your girlfriend's finger to *confirm* whether she is cheating or not..... will cost you circa 116E...and a suspened sentence.
Definitely something wrong about how justice is implemented/handed out.
Albert Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 12:07
No, Dr. Mark Anthony Falzon, this judgement has nothing to do with China or Iran. This judgement concerns someone who used Facebook to express his wish that a human being is shot, that violence is used against another human being. How would you feel if those words used in this case on Facebook referred to a relative of yours, instead of to the Pope? And this person wanted his wish to be known to as wide a circle as possible...he published it on Facebook...he did not limit himself to saying it to a few known friends in his living room. Contrary to what is said in the article, people know exactly that what they say on Facebook is read by a large audience. That is PRECISELY why they write on Facebook to gain asbig an audience as possible. To gain their 15 minutes of fame.
Paul Barrett
May 23rd 2010, 12:05
The interesting point is what if Karl Farrugia had been in say America when he posted the comment, would he still have been prosecuted here in Malta - and if so how?
I am not trying to defend him and I do not in any way agree either with his comment or his sense of humour in this matter which was indeed in poor taste, just trying to understand the legal side.
R Grima
May 23rd 2010, 12:01
Man born free but everywhere he is in chains. It doesn't take too much brain power to realize that this was a joke,albeit in bad taste. All that was needed was perhaps pointing out that this sort of comment although with no real bad intent is perhaps not uttered.
What has been achieved by this court case is worse than just a mark on this boy's conduct and a heavy fine. The authorities have effectively shut him up for good.No longer will he feel free to express an opinion which is his right.He has been silenced,yet another nail in the coffin of freedom of expression. Let's carry on breeding sheep.
Andrew Borg-Cardona
May 23rd 2010, 10:41
An interesting point was apparently raised by the defence: the charge stated that the publication was "in Malta" but can commenting on a site hosted outside Malta constitute publication in Malta? The published reports do not state whether this was dealt with in the Court's judgement and it needs clarification.
Does the act of publication take place where the entry is made on the computer from where the material is sent or where it is made public on the 'Net? My view that it is the former location that is the place of publication, but it is only my opinion.