01 Jun You Don’t Have A Right To Say That (or do you?)
This article was first published in FM Magazine June 2011
During a recent radio programme, blogger and strategist Alex Grech, said that “whilst in Malta blogging is still in its infancy, in other countries some are claiming that it is already dead.”
With over 200,000 Maltese on Facebook, self-publishing in Malta is certainly alive and kicking, but is the freedom to opine always a good thing? And is intolerance always bad? What if it’s a case of a racist, sexist or bigoted opinion? Shouldn’t we have zero tolerance for these?
The right to freedom of expression brings with it a very scary revelation – the fact that some people have very high levels of intolerance towards arguments opposed to their own. It is one of those freedoms which quickly brings out, the good, the bad and the ugly, in equal mammoth proportions.
In principle, most of us would agree with Voltaire’s famous words “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But how easy, or even possible, is it to adhere to this code of conduct when you don’t agree with what is being said?
In order to respect the true essence of freedom of expression and speech, everybody should respect everybody’s else’s right to say whatever they want, even if they don’t like it, don’t want to hear it, or publicly insults or humiliates them. It’s easy to respect and tolerate freedom of speech when we happen to agree with whoever is doing the expressing, it’s when we disagree that we get our panties tied in a knot and try to gag the speakers with their own socks.
Mark Camilleri, editor of “Realta”, is still awaiting the final judgement on the case of ‘Li Tkisser Sewwi’ – a story written by Alex Vella Gera, and which Camilleri published in the university journal – Ir-Realta. The story which theoretically went against local obscenity laws, hit the headlines and spearheaded many online discussions for and against censorship. Camilleri is strong in his stand. He says that even if he is found guilty it won’t make a difference. “If I ever stumble upon some other brilliant piece of literature which is deemed ‘offensive’ by the police, the State or some high-brow writers who are more interested in sucking up to the Nationalist Party and the State rather than making academic criticism, I would publish it without any fear whatsoever. I do not regret one single thing except that ‘Li Tkisser Sewwi, should have been longer; that would have made it better.”
According to Adrian Buckle, an artistic director and theatre producer “censorship laws should be scrapped, and should only be applied in extreme and exceptional cases. Where theatre is concerned, producers should simply classify their own work according to a given set of guidelines, and let the audience decide what to consume and what not to. The laws and the market will then regulate themselves.”
One could argue that intolerance and censorship is murdering freedom of expression, and that the solution is to stop anyone from saying anything offensive, but Alex Grech who is currently reading a PH.D about the disruption of power systems (or hegemony) through blogging, thinks that whilst we now have the ability to say anything we want – a freedom which we did not enjoy prior to the advent of online self publishing, it doesn’t mean that in a civilised society we should be racist, sexist, or behave like bigots. “There are, and should be laws to regulate that,” adds Alex. “In the pre-Internet days, you had to rely on a gatekeeper – an editor empowered by a printing press, or a Bondi type person on TV. Now, you don’t need anybody’s permission. In the old days, you may have had something very valid to say, but it would never have seen the light of day unless you had access to a printing press, or an editor. Now, you can do it on your own, just by pressing ‘publish’ on your blog, Facebook, Twitter etc. Social media is increasingly becoming the back channel of our lives. It’s where civil society is going to, to raise its voice but it should be, and is, subject to the same rules as publishing through any other orthodox channel. Many people make the mistake of thinking that online they are immune to prosecution – this is just not true. Conversely, there are still problems with regulation and when sometimes even when there’s an embargo or a court order gagging the media, some things are still leaked on social media.”
In past few weeks, more specifically during the run up to the divorce referendum, we’ve witnessed many cases of what could be classified as online harassment. With supporters of the two sides practically at each other’s throats, the gloves were off and bullying tactics abound, even online. It is very likely that a lot of convincing happened on social networks, but according to Alex “the powers that be have yet to recognise this paradigm shift. They still haven’t realised that anyone who has a following of sorts, even mere members of civil society (as opposed to politicians) are increasingly, and quietly becoming more influential using the new tools.”
Josanne Cassar Deputy Editor and Features Editor with The Malta Independent says that “the divorce referendum was the first indication that freedom of expression is really not in the hands of the mainstream media any more. This was due not so much to the internet, but to Facebook in particular. While blogs, news portals and other sites were utilised, as they were in the 2008 elections, people have now realised their limitations. In many cases one’s comment is in the hands of a faceless moderator – and your comment may or may not be uploaded.”
“With Facebook, however, everyone’s opinion is equal in the sense that anyone can have their own ‘blog’ through their wall. Anyone can set up a group or a page, and the potential of cross-referencing and linking with other sites, has opened up the exposure to all new media. The speed with which something goes ‘viral’ is breathtaking, as I witnessed first-hand with my tongue-in-cheek slogan which turned into the Moviment Tindahalx page. One minute my status was saying : you take care of your soul, I’ll take care of mine’ (Moviment Tindahlax), and the next it was being shared and posted by hundreds – that one word “tindahalx” (don’t interfere) caught people’s imagination and encapsulated the general feeling of exasperation at how the state and church were meddling in people’s private lives.”
“Having said that, there is still quite a high level of intolerance in Malta. This can be witnessed by certain insulting, aggressive comments which poured in during the online divorce debates. The challenge is to balance the right to speak your mind with the right not to “attack” each other personally. I think we still have a long way to go in learning how to criticise the argument rather than to viciously destroy the person making the argument.”
Mark, is the mysterious blogger behind the controversial markbiwwa.com. Mark thinks that some forms of intolerance seem to be state-sanctioned, and more tolerated than others. “My biggest area of concern is that the ‘vilification of religion’ is still part of the Criminal Code, when hate speech against homosexuals, for example, is not tackled with an equal severity. It is an area that we’re extremely inconsistent in.”
On the same lines Gabi Calleja Chairman of the Malta Gay Rights Movement is of the opinion that “freedom of expression is a right that should be valued and protected in a democracy. However this right can and should be limited particularly when what is being expressed has the potential to cause harm or impinges on the rights of others.” Referring to Pastor Gordon-John Manche’s public claim about the success of gay conversions, Gabi argues that “while we do not believe that what Manche claimed amounts to hate speech, his comments impinge on the freedom of expression of LGBT people to freely express their sexual identity. Gay conversion activities corrode this right by implying that LGBT people are not entitled to live their lives to the same extent that heterosexual persons are. Such beliefs also lead to an increased risk of self-harm and suicide among LGBT youth. For this reason we feel impelled to protest when such beliefs are expressed publicly.”
Over 2000 years ago Aristotle stated that no one, no government, or authority can ever make its citizens morally virtuous, and that a basic understanding of human nature shows that it is simply impossible to have a society where everyone is nice to everyone else. I wonder, therefore, why are we still trying?
