Upcoming court decisions on censorship

It seems hard to believe but it has now been more than two years since the censorship saga erupted in Malta.

The Stitching and Ir-Realtà cases are now both in their appeal phase and will be decided on December 5 and 7 respectively. It is important to remember that the two cases are different in nature.

In the case of Stitching, the producers are challenging the state’s classification board by asserting their constitutional right to freedom of expression. On the other hand, in the Ir-Realtà case, it is the police who have instituted criminal proceedings against Mark Camilleri and Alex Vella Gera. This affects the implications of the sentences in each case.

If the Stitching case is won, the classification board’s decision to censor the play would be overturned. This does not mean that the classification board will lose its power to censor theatre, although some have argued that such a sentence would challenge its legitimacy to actually block certain types of performance.

On the other hand, a second ruling against Stitching would mean that the Constitutional Court would have settled on a very narrow interpretation of freedom of expression. Such a sentence would increase the power of the state to control the right of its citizens to disseminate material, which it finds unpalatable. It would be an attack on, and a further dilution of, the liberal democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution.

In the Ir-Realtà case, a positive verdict would strengthen the citizen’s position to publish artistic works without the fear of moralistic censorship, in particular that brought about by the issue of criminal proceedings against his person. In practice, the same laws which have criminalised Mr Camilleri and Mr Vella Gera would still stand but it would perhaps help establish a line that law enforcement officers would think twice to cross.

A loss in the Ir-Realtà case, would, however, be much more crippling. One should not be naïve and think that the police simply enforce the laws made by Parliament. When dealing with ideological crimes such as these, there is always a highly subjective decision by the law enforcement officer in question on whether to arraign the author or not. A decision against Ir-Realtà would facilitate the persecution of citizens who are perceived to pose a “moral hazard” to society by conservative elements within the police.

One should keep in mind that if censorship has been eased for the time being, it is only because the anti-censorship lobby has made it expensive for such attempts to take place. A sentence against these two cases could provide the impetus for a renewed wave of censorship. Even if the sentences are in favour, one should not forget that court proceedings take time, energy and resources.

While the option for conservatives to use the state to put artists through such ordeals exists, there will always be a deterrent for one to speak one’s mind without self-censorship. Thus, the only acceptable solution is a comprehensive reform of the law itself.