Reality Bites
The Times reports that Alex Vella Gera and Mark Camilleri, respectively the author and the editor in the Li Tkisser Sewwi saga, have been acquitted of publishing pornographic and obscene material. So much for “censorship” then. It’s not like the fuss was not necessary, it’s not like there was no need for a discussion as to why a University rector might feel the need to involve the boys in uniform because of his fears about the content of a piece of writing.
This is a huge wake up call to all those who have been yelling about fascist governments and censorship. J’accuse pointed out, time and time again, that the law is there to be applied and that we could not yell censorship unless the courts of law actually thought that the law on pornography applied to the content. We will have the fury of literati bearing down upon us again but the naked truth is now written in the court judgement handed down by Magistrate Audrey Demicoli. Stories like Li Tkisser Sewwi are not considered pornographic or obscene under Maltese law.
So what are we left with? An overzealous rector and a police force that once again gets trumped in court (pole dancers, obscenity and pornography – all in a days work). On the other hand there will be less excuses for the illuminati of this world to yell “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism” at some trumped up ghost.
Ironic as it may seem* reality does bite every now and again.
*phrase sponsored by PG’s tips.
Also on the subject:
Mark Biwwa’s : Violence and Obscenity Maltese Style
Related articles
- Pornography: Why Govern It? (socyberty.com)
- The Simpsons, Skins, and Child Porn (reason.com)
- Blocking internet pornography … that’s censorship, isn’t it? (guardian.co.uk)
On the other hand there will be less excuses for the illuminati of this world to yell “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism” at some trumped up ghost.
While I agree with the legalistic part of the argument, i can not agree with the its spirit…the guys involved in this episode needed huge amounts of staying power and strength to deal with emotions of fear etc and to secure know how and moral support needed to get through this. There are many others (i repeat many) who did not have the strength and were flattened/broke down/ dare i say died? … through the process before an issue could come onto the altar of case studies or whatever sentences influencing understanding of specific laws are called…
is it called case law?
I think you mean “landmark case”.
thanks
Jacques,
I guess that the “illuminati’s” yell of “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism”, was directed towards the prosecutors, i.e. the Univeristy Rector and the Police. Given the circumstances, such yells are entirely justifiable. Fortunately the court decided against the prosecutors, but the accusation of an attempt of censorship by the prosecutors still holds.
Oh I back those yells all right – especially when directed to the Uni rector or the police who took the poor blokes to court. It’s not censorship though – it’s more a case of conservatism and ignorance – and the need to fight that is big enough without having to set bad examples to the onlookers about myths of fascist states.
It’s a huge step between Juanito and Muammar.
Apart from the Rector and the police there’s also the University Chaplain since the Rector was acting on his advice. People tend to forget (myself included) that it was the Chaplain that started this whole saga.
The courts do not interpret and apply the law in a vacuum. Had there been no ‘yells’ of “censorship”, “oppression” or “fascism”, the outcome may well have been different.
No they don’t. They apply it using principles of interpretation applied to the text of law before them. This is a court of law not a referendum.
As a lawyer you should know well that the courts are influenced by political and social changes. An identical text would have given rise to a different interpretation, say, fifty years ago.
Sorry Andrew I really do not dig this “as a lawyer” business it stops just short of gratuitous insult – what are you insinuating… that I do not know my job and how to do it? Yes, I like to think that until a while ago we received a specialisation in understanding the law and how to interpret it.
As for your assertion there is an inherent contradiction in your two statements. Are you implying that time is an important factor or that public pressure is?
If the issue was one of 50 years ago vs now then by that rationale there would be no need of pressure on the court because it would be obvious to the court. If on the other hand there would be the need of public pressure to influence the court (presumably to go against what is written in the law) then the time factor is irrelevant.
Having said that I insist again that the public pressure has nothing to do with the court’s interpretation of a law that was already there. We will wait for the text of the judgement to see what the limits of the decision are – how (and whether) it defines obscenity and pornography.
Incidentally it is in defining such matters – when the legislator leaves them in a vacuum – that the court might have resort to the man in the street. It will try to look at the issue from the point of view of the reasonable man but NOT at how much noise and fuss was raised by others.
As an add on to the “as a lawyer” business… I try to reason things out without coming up with such bull as “I should know better” or by waving some law degree in the air. Time has shown that law degrees have begun to be given out by the dozen as standards seem to be crashing to the ground. It is not in my style to claim some sort of exclusivity on some sector simply because I have studied it for seven years and worked in the field for another twelve – and more pertinently to this case I have drafted decisions for a court for the last seven. I like to think that there is more to an argument than a comparison of degrees or self-appointed qualifications (I’ve seen other bloggers and the Toronto “journalist” do that quite often though)…
Sorry if my comment rubbed you the wrong way. No offence was intended, and I trust none was taken.
I do not quite understand ‘Time has shown that law degrees have begun to be given out by the dozen as standards seem to be crashing to the ground’ but if you are saying that standards have plunged in the UM LLD/LLB course in recent years, I would tend to agree.
I still hold that societal changes influence legal decisions, even if the statue law would not have changed in the meantime. Public pressure is part of the changes that have occured. Fifty years ago, no person in his/her right mind in Malta would have spoken out publically in favour of a person charged with ‘immorality’, irrespective of personal views.
Only time (again!) will tell whether this judgement will have a lasting impact or whether things will soon go back to the status quo ante.
No offence taken. I just wanted to get that off my chest since you are not the first to bring it up today: and yes, I do refer to the recent plunge in standards (and I firmly believe that the lowering of linguistic requirements is the beginning of a downward spiral).
I think we are saying similar things differently. I mean that the court will not be influenced by the fact that a protest or whatever was made loudly in favour of one side or another. The fact that it is bound to look at what the “reasonable man” would see as “obscene” or “pornographic” might result from the vagueness of the legislative text. In that case it is not the protestor that has value but the man in the street – from Juanito to Mark to PC Vella – a rather more complex animal if you ask me: the greatest difficulty is getting a snapshot of the “maltese mind”.