As a former member of Parliament, a self-declared contender to high office in the form of a Cabinet minister and serving executive chairman of the Malta Council for Science and Technology, there can be little doubt that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is a public figure. He has now taken it upon himself to spearhead a campaign aimed, he insists, at protecting such public figures from being ‘hounded’ by the press and/or the social media.

In a judicial protest filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, he called on telecommunications companies and the government to stop the dissemination of reports as a result of which people could become victims of crime. He is even calling for the enactment of ad hoc legislation to address the matter.

At face value that is a very noble and altruistic gesture. President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca herself last month noted with regret that “communication tools [were] being used by some, anonymously or otherwise, to humiliate, ridicule, intimidate and discredit individuals and their families, by intruding in their private lives”.

But reading between the lines of the judicial protest and keeping in mind his own online habits, the move by Dr Pullicino Orlando turns out to be a charade.

There is very good reason to suspect that his main intention is not to make a genuine appeal to bloggers and journalists to ensure social communications means are used to serve rather than cause misery, as the President did.

Dr Pullicino Orlando first acknowledges that, being a person in public life, he was subject to public scrutiny and journalistic comment and declares he did not wish to hinder that in any way. But, he points out, there were instances when the subject matter had no journalistic purpose but only amounted to menacing content or annoyance. He mentions examples: reports he was holidaying abroad, that he was on plane or dining at a restaurant with his partner and friends.

Yet, he himself, or people close to him, posted such material on Facebook. Here are just three examples: May 28 – a picture showing him and his daughter, presumably on her graduation day; May 9 – a picture with a caption reading “Quad biking in the ‘wild east’ of Sicily”; May 8 – Dr Pullicino Orlando and another person are pictured wearing helmets and sunglasses, indicating it was taken during leisure time.

Of course, he has every right to post pictures of himself online. However, it would, at best, be inconsistent doing so when he goes to the law courts declaring he is worried that when other people post very similar images they would be exposing him to crime or menacing/annoying him. At worse, it would amount to hypocrisy or, alternatively, an attempt to gag any potential critics.

There is then a significant consideration to be made in reaction to Dr Pullicino Orlando’s apparent eagerness to tell the press what to report or not. The European Court of Human Rights insists that “journalists enjoy the freedom to choose, from the news items that come to them, which they will deal with and how they will do so. This freedom, however, is not devoid of responsibilities”.

Focusing on those responsibilities, as the President did, is one thing. Playing Big Brother is another.

One final point: the concept of positive obligation. A positive obligation burdens the State with the duty to ensure the effective enjoyment of a fundamental right, including of the press and bloggers. The authorities must bear this in mind when responding to Dr Pullicino Orland’s judicial protest.