The two legally enforceable days of silence before and during the general election, on Friday and yesterday, descended into anarchy on social media as both PL and PN decided to forge ahead with their campaigning.
The two days are meant to be free of campaigning and political reporting, with penalties for those found in breach of the law.
The PN cried foul about sponsored content on Facebook posted by Labour candidates on Friday morning but then decided to let its own candidates loose on social media after the Electoral Commission failed to take any action.
By Friday evening, any semblance of either party obeying the law went out the window as both started transmitting their videos live on Facebook.
The law governing the days of silence was drafted in 1991, prior to the full-blown introduction of internet in Malta.
Those found in breach faced a fine or a maximum six-month jail term, or both.
Criminal lawyers agree the law’s wording is broad enough to encompass the internet.
The 2013 election saw a number of candidates, as well as journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, being questioned by the police over potential breaches.
This time around, the police appear to have taken a more pragmatic approach.
Ġorġ Mallia, the head of the University of Malta’s media and communications department, told The Sunday Times of Malta that there was obviously no way social media posts could be stopped or controlled.
In this sense, the days of silence had now become redundant, Dr Mallia said.
He argued, however, that voters do deserved a rest after having been inundated with political messages, although this was unlikely to happen in such a passionate country.
“Because of this inundation, having one day where the cacophony is not there makes sense, psychologically speaking. Unfortunately, technologically speaking, it is not going to happen.”
He draws a contrast between the election fever experienced in Malta and the atmosphere in Scandinavia, where he has spent a number of years and where one barely notices an election is on.
The university lecturer said the Electoral Commission did not have the power or ability to stop Friday’s “farce”. At the time the law was introduced, expression was far more controllable.
“It was for legacy media. Legacy media is controllable, because there are gatekeepers. On social media, there are no gatekeepers.
“Yes, there are safeguards, but safeguards are slow, because it is so massive and overwhelming. By the time Facebook reacts to complaints, it will already be a day later,” Dr Mallia said.
No influence on voters allowed
The law says that on the day of an election or preceding it, “no person shall address any public meeting or any other gathering whatsoever in any place or building accessible to the public, or on the broadcasting media, on any matter intended or likely to influence voters in the exercise of the franchise…”
Nor can any person “publish or cause to be published any newspaper, printed matter or other means of communication… or issue or cause to be issued any statement or declaration” likely to influence voters. Anyone breaching this law may be fined not more than €1,164.69, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.