Another reminder that Facebook isn't a private sitting-room or club
Some jokes are better left unmade
timesofmalta.com, this morning
Swieqi man fined €500 over Facebook comment
A man who posted a comment on Facebook saying that the Pope should be shot in his hand, cheeks and in his side just as Christ was, was today condemned to a month in jail suspended for a year and fined €500.
Karl Farrugia, 24, formed part of group called No to the Pope in Malta and posted his comment on April 7.
He was charged in terms of the Press Act with incitement.
Taking the witness stand, Mr Farrugia said the comment was only meant as a joke because he assumed that the members of the group all thought the same. He wanted to make the connection between Christ and the Pope.
Defence counsel Owen Bonnici argued in Mr Farrugia’s defence that he could not be found guilty of the charge because Facebook was registered in America and therefore he did not effectively publish the comment in Malta but in the US. Although this joke was in bad taste, he did not mean to incite anybody to harm the Pope in any way.
Lawyer and Labour MP (this two-hats business is getting really annoying) Owen Bonnici needs to go back to law school. The university is churning out lawyers and they seem to be six a penny with the quality to match.
The jurisdiction in which an internet site is registered does not make a blind bit of difference to the legal position here in Malta – or anywhere else – because anything on the internet can be read anywhere in the world. This might be thought obvious, but clearly it is not. And that’s the reason why people who post stuff on the internet seem to behave as though they are chatting to friends in a private room rather than exposing themselves to the entire globe – or at least, that part of the globe with an internet connection.
If that young man’s foolish – for I believe they were foolish rather than malign – comments were published on the internet, then they were effectively published in Malta. The same principle applies as though it were a radio broadcast on a world service transmitted even in Malta. Anything broadcast on that service would be considered broadcast in Malta.
The other thing we have to look at is where the perpetrator lives. He lives in Malta, so it is in Malta that he can be prosecuted. In other words, he committed his ‘crime’ in Malta, he lives in Malta, his ‘criminal words’ were published in Malta, so he is prosecuted in Malta.
The domain in which an internet site is registered makes a difference only with the investigation, with a view to prosecution, of those who use the internet for criminal slander and defamation, among other crimes. This is because the Malta police have to go through the police authorities of the jurisdiction in which the domain is registered so as to obtain the required information. The police there then have to jump through their own hoops. Because of data protection laws and other complications, this is not always possible unless the crime is really serious like child sex images or similar.
But any crime committed on the internet is basically taken to have been committed anywhere the internet can be picked up and where the jurisdiction makes that act a crime.
Karl Farrugia could have been prosecuted anywhere in the world where it is a crime to publish such sentiments. It just so happens that he lives in Malta, could be identified in Malta, and so was prosecuted in Malta.
Maybe now more people will learn that Facebook is not a sofa in somebody’s living-room or a private club.
A few days ago in England a young woman protested because embarrassing pictures which she had uploaded on Facebook were picked up by others and used on their internet sites. They were then in turn picked up by magazines. She filed a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission. Their verdict? She had no case because she had put the pictures on Facebook where they were exposed to millions, so she could hardly complain because others had exposed them too.
Facebook is jammed solid with the most unbelievably stupid comments. But then Facebook is jammed solid with the most unbelievably stupid people.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Disgraceful & disrespectful to comment about the head of the Catholic Church and a head of state as such.
[Daphne – That is irrelevant to the discussion.]
True, but would/could he have been charged (with incitement) if those same foolish comments were made about someone with a lower profile, or perhaps no public profile at all?
I’d like to think so, but can’t help feeling this only happened because it was about Ratzi.
[Daphne – All the police need when the person is of a lower profile is a formal complaint or kwerela. That’s how I came to be prosecuted for what I wrote about Magistrate Herrera. The police did not act on their own initiative. She filed a complaint. Karl Farrugia could have written those things about you, then you file a complaint with the police and they act. I don’t think the Pope filed a complaint, though. It would be hard to believe. In this case the police would have acted on their own initiative, perhaps after being alerted by somebody.]
Would the penalties be similar for comments about low- and high-profile people, or is there an element of keeping a lid on calls to violence against public figures here?
I mean, if everyone insulted or threatened in public forums could reasonably expect their offender to get jail sentences and fines, we’d be swamped in kwereli…
This is not a correct assesment. First of all, where the law requires that a prosecution carried by the police requires the complaint of the injured party, the police cannot, in spite of any misgivings to the contrary, act on their own initiative.
The question of a person’s profile is therefore irrelevant (unless the same facts would lead to a separate offence in regard to some public office, say, the President of the Republic).
What is highly relevant though is the offence itself. Daphne’s prosecution is centred on criminal libel or slander, and as a result of which the person slandered is required to file a complaint with the police if a prosecution is to be entertained (irrespective of the results of their investigation).
In the case under review the offence is completely different. The offence of incitement to commit a crime has no such requirement. No complaint is required. The police will investigate the commission of the offence even if only a mere report has been filed by a private citizen (even anonymously) or as part of an on-going investigation (say, the police have a crack team at HQ investigating the web continuously for these sort of crimes) – and if they are morally convinced that an offence has taken place, then they will prosecute – even if, the Pope in this case – writes to them and makes an impassioned plea for them to desist. The discretion to proceed nolle prosequi will then lie in the hands of the A.G.’s office – who will, after receiving the Papal Bull, no doubt exercise it!
So what made this person liable to prosecution, the fact that he lives in Malta or that he committed the crime in Malta?
[Daphne – Both.]
Similarly if Bin Laden (assuming he does not live in Malta) says through the internet that he wants to kill all the Americans then Malta can prosecute him?
[Daphne – Bin Laden is a terrorist. International law applies. But that aside, Bin Laden does not live in Malta so Malta can’t prosecute him.]
International law is principally applied by states. As terrorists (and others, for example, pirates) are treated as hosti humani generis ( enemies of mankind) any state can prosecute them. Obviously one must take into account that the bastard must be captured first.
For example, the Somali pirates detained by the international naval forces patrolling off Somalia’s coast are sent to be tried through Kenya’s courts.
Not as a general rule. Sometimes they’re handed over to the authorities of Puntland. And within a few days they’re back to yo-ho-hoing on the heaving brine, but that’s by the by.
This is despicable. Saying what one thinks the pope deserves cannot ever be a crime, especially when there is a hint of hyperbole. I thought heretics don’t get caged and burned any more.
Il-veru kaz ta’ mill-hazin ghall-aghar. Shame on Maltese justice!
I believe the pope should be canned into sacred dog food. There – prosecute me.
Excuse my ignorance, learned kev, but I thought that the crime here was principly the incitement of violence. Surely, as an ex-criminal-policeman you would have noticed that?
“He was charged in terms of the Press Act with incitement.”
What about Norman Lowell’s ‘Imperium Europa’ website and its contents? Is that okay with the local watchdogs then?
Still, the punishment is too severe considering what the two guys who assaulted the Birdlife members got the other day.
“Bin Laden does not live in Malta so Malta can’t prosecute him”
I think the only thing that prevents Malta from prosecuting him is that he is not in Malta. If for some hypothetical reason he were to fly to Malta I don’t see any reason why he would not be arrested as soon as he stepped off the plane.
[Daphne – Yes, because his crimes fall within the parameters of international law.]
Given what the pope stands for, I wouldn’t mind if some nut does actually think Karl was serious.
Interesting though how publishing something in the US about someone in the Vatican gets you fined in Malta.
[Daphne – It wasn’t published ‘in the US’. It is published globally, via the internet. That’s why you can read it here in Malta.]
The website is a US one. From there they distribute it to the rest of the world. Similar to those UK papers like ‘The Sun’ etc… they are published in the UK and in return also distributed to given countries.
[Daphne – Yes, and that’s why you can sue The Sun in Malta’s courts for libel if you live in Malta and that newspaper libels you. But then you’d have to get the writer, editor/publisher to attend court sittings here.]
…………and what about Norman Lowell? I am convinced that his entire outlook is far more pernicious than what this Karl Farrugia did.
Instead of prosecuting Lowell for his racist, sexist and generally outrageously irresponsible statements the BA is giving Lou Bondi the Third Degree! The Church is totally quiet about it all too.
We are such an insane country of interbred morons which is the only thing I see eye to eye with Lowell about, although I think he tops the lot!
Lou Bondi did the right thing in exposing how delusional Mr Lowell is and I am sure he was expecting the BA to grab him by the ear. On a more frivoulous note it was entertaining television as witnessed by the peak in viewership.
Individuals like Mr Lowell don’t worry me, it is those otherwise rational and sometimes even respected individuals who come out with one of these totally unacceptable wacko ideas that scare me.
Funny how crackpots who are well off have always more or less been tolerated by society while poor ones end up shut in some institution.
I believe we have a right to hear anybody’s speech as long as no physical harm is done. I’m sorry but I don’t believe in the “inciting” part (inciting hatred, inciting racism etc). People can blabber all they want – we are adult enough to formulate our own morals and beliefs.
I’ve listened to most of Lowell’s presentations on Youtube, but that didn’t turn me into a racist. Similarly, reading someone writing about wishing the pope to suffer like Christ would DEFINITELY NOT make me go out and attempt to hang the pope on a cross or something!
The best way to prevent Malta from becoming “an insane country of interbred morons” would be to promote unrestricted immigration. Is that the solution being actually advanced? I hope not!
“Germany calling, Germany calling” ask your parents. Lord Haw Haw managed to broadcast his propaganda until the end of the Second World War and still ended up dropping from a rope, and that was 60 years ago. You reap what you sow; get used to it. He chose the losing side.
Glad you’re back, Daphne. I was missing your outlook here in Afrique Equatoriale!
Karl is being made into a scapegoat. It was written as a joke and nothing more. I guess this should be a lesson to one and all that what you post on Facebook and such sites is out of your hands once you post it globally.
the fact is that had the insulted person (this time being the pope) decided to proceed against Karl, he could have been tried anywhere in the world. the way it is done is simple: you choose a country where you say the article was read (or it might be chosen just because it has harsh defamation laws) and proceed in the court of that country. this has been used against some journalists too