[Daphne – Love the way you make assistant editor a proper noun. It Must Be Important.]

[Daphne – I very much doubt it. It’s probably more akin to morbid fascination.]

Nice try :-)

http://www.petitiononline.com/CENMAL01/

Well said, Daphne! Freedom of speech cannot be conditional. It is either free or it has parameters. Once parameters exist, there’s no telling to what extents it could be curtailed. If a particular speech is proved to have incited violent crime, then the law should apply, but NOT against what was said per se, but against what followed as a direct result.

Curtailing speech gives rise to labelling, marginalisation, despotism and ignorance.

Sorry to go a bit off topic but this is a sore point with me. It is so unethical to use the name of a real person as a pen-name, especially if it is not a very common one such as, say, Joe Borg. There are a few real people called Sigmund Bonello and a casual reader could think that it is one of them writing here and elsewhere.

[Daphne – They can object, and a responsible moderator will deal with the situation accordingly. Some months ago, I noticed that somebody was posting ill-written, badly spelled, pro-Labour comments on timesofmalta.com under the name Darrin Caruana Galizia. I emailed the moderator to say that anyone called Darrin Caruana Galizia would have to be either my son or one of their cousins (it’s not a first name the older generation would have used), which this person was not, so would he please delete those comments and not allow the appropriation of a surname borne only by one family. He did.]

I fully agree with you. Free speech cannot be absolute. If it were, it would trample over the rights of others at some stage. Where is the line drawn? At which point is free speech to be curtailed?

The highest authority on this matter is the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. It, and it alone sets the benchmarks. In its body of judgements dating back several decades it has more or less established that a limitation to free speech is justified in the following cases:
– where the speech libellous or slanderous;
– where the speech incites racial hatred, violence, sedition, and (serious) civil unrest.

By and large the principle adopted by the court consistently over the years is that there must be a “clear and present danger” to the state and/or to society in order for a limitation to a human right (including free expression) to be subjected to a restriction.

This means, yes, it is justified in our society to curtail those who deliver racist speeches. It is justified to curtail those who slander and libel others. It is justified to curtail those who promote violence against the weaker members of society (such as children).

It is NOT, however, justified to curtail speech that injures nobody, and is a million miles away from the “clear and present danger” test. It is NOT justified to curtail speech purely on the basis that we don’t like it, or that it’s shocking … or that it doesn’t involve Julie Andrews singing “The hills are aliiiiive …”

I think it’s significant to point out that the very first case decided by the court against Malta (Demicoli -vs- Malta) involved free expression. Malta has CONSISTENTLY lost ALL its cases on free expression presented before the court to date. That fact alone speaks volumes about the national psyche on the subject.

As usual, Malta needs to look elsewhere to see how things should be done properly. The British Board of Film Classification, for example, makes all its findings publicly available on its website – a practice that should could be considered normal in a mature and modern democracy.

The problem in Malta is that publicising the thought processes of members of the censorship board, inasmuch as they have any, would leave them quite deservedly open to ridicule.

Incidentally, what is the actual name of the body that adopts decisions on whether play can or cannot be put on? Presumably, whatever it’s called, it falls under the umbrella of the Ministry of Culture, Education, Youth and Sport. That itself is nothing short of a scandal – how in heaven’s name can one government department be responsible for such disparate areas?