There seems to be “all-round support for the internet as a civil right” if we are to believe the Times, and we have no reason not to. Lawyer Antonio Ghio described it as “the legal crystallisation of a reality we live in”, which is an interesting statement for many a reason. Ever since PM Gonzi announced “four new civil rights related to online behaviour” there seems to have been much clapping and jumping with enthusiasm. J’accuse has a problem with this enthusiasm – yes we’re going to be the usual wet blanket but we feel duty bound to point at the herd of elephants presently occupying the centre of the debate.
Elephants, might I add, that seem to have escaped everybody’s attention. So here are the questions in short: What exactly are these rights and if we do not know what they are how can we be so bloody enthusiastic about them?
The pseudo-psychological analysis of the situation is simple. “The people” were pissed off about ACTA – all that yada yada about lack of consultation and infringement of rights without actually looking into the darn agreement still gathered momentum. Enter Castille Office’s new technique of tackling complaints yesterday and we get the impromptu promise of “new civil rights”. Which brings us to the first problem… does anybody know what these rights are… and more importantly do we need them?
Mysterious rights you (probably) already have
So what actual facts do we have about these new rights? Well we have a DOI press release (PR0293 – thank you Fausto for the split second research). The rights are mentioned in the introductory paragraph:
Il-Prim Ministru Lawrence Gonzi jemmen li l-aċċess mingħajr xkiel ta’ persuna għall-Internet; id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-libertà tal-espressjoni permezz tal-internet; u d-dritt li jiddeċiedi x’informazzjoni jikkomunika huma drittijiet ċivili ġodda li għandhom jidħlu fil-liġijiet ta’ pajjiżna. Għalhekk il-Prim Ministru se jressaq liġi fil-Parlament li tiggarantixxi dawn id-drittijiet ċivili ġodda f’pajjiżna.
There you have it we find a generally worded reference to the four “rights”:
1) a right of unobstructed access to the internet;
2) a right to receive information via the internet;
3) a right to freely express oneself on the internet;
4) a right to decide what information to communicate.
Let us assume that rights two to four overlap insofar as they can be generally summed up as the right to exchange information (send/receive, upload/download) using this technology. That leaves us with the right to access the internet and the right to use it to exchange information. Can someone in their right mind who has been unaffected by this civil right frenzy stand up and tell me which of these rights does not already exist today?
As somebody put it (rightly) – why not introduce the basic civil right to read books, to watch TV and to listen to radio? Do you know why? Because it is already there – in the fundamental rights and freedoms that even our supposedly faulty and archaic laws include. So what is Castille selling?
Well, the people at Castille are not that stupid. If I can get you to believe that I am giving you the right to the air that you breathe and that for that you will be extremely grateful then why not? So who is being a silly ninny then?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
We’ve said it before and we say it again. All too often nowadays we are being besieged by an army of supposed experts wanting to tinker with our legislation. The Franco Debono Reform is fast becoming an example of that. What could start off as a well meaning change ends up becoming a sweeping bungling exercise by the uninformed. And that is dangerous.
The anti-ACTAvists had us all in a twist about strip-searches at the border and Big Brother and Corporate intrusion into our private lives. What almost every indignant ACTAvist missed was the simple point that even if the strip-search myth turned out to be true it would be conducted in order to discover and prosecute an illegality. Downloading bootleg copies is a crime with or without ACTA. Illegal use of the instrument called internet is just as illegal as the illegal use of a book, radio or TV.
The Gonzi Civil Rights are stating the obvious. What they do not do is tell you that you have the right to use the internet illegally. Downloading your favourite Lana Del Ray album from Pirate Bay remains a technical illegality. Caveat pirata. Expression? You have always had the right to express yourself on the internet.. you did not need Gonzi’s 4 rights to do so. Is it clear? For example if you have decided to publish something like “Li Tkisser Sewwi” (or any other literary essay) on your blog you are just as likely to be sued under Maltese laws as you would be if you printed it in pamphlet form.
We should not be confusing the medium with the content. Sure we all want the right to the internet and soon we’ll be claiming for the right to wifi and fast-speed access. But the basic rules of society that have evolved since Socrates and Plato need not change. You have a right to express yourself – from graffitti on a wall to pamphlets to a blog – whether your use of that right impinges on the rights of others is a choice you make and that right has consequences you that you must also consider. I shall never stop repeating it: we are servants of the law so that we may be free (Cicero).
Those who should know
So if Fr Joe Borg is the communications expert he claims he is I expect him to be more clear about this ploy and not call it a “noble and laudable” measure. As for Antonio Ghio, with all due respect, the whole point of the “legal crystallisation of a reality” is that the very crystallisation is futile. You don’t need to be given a right that you already have – unless you mistakenly believe that these new rights will give you something extra.
Which brings me to the masked men and women at MAAG. Here’s Ingram Bondin from MAAG speaking about the rights that aren’t new:
Ingram Bondin, from the Malta Anti-Acta Group, which staged the protest on Saturday, welcomed the initiative, saying the rights were a “step forward for Maltese society”. However, he cautioned that the proposals would not stop opposition to Acta, which was driven by a host of other issues.
A host eh? I’m still waiting for an answer about the Convention on Cybercrime. It’s the kind of convention that shows you the limits of internet rights – particularly because crimes are crimes no matter what the medium. The Convention is a perfect example of the limits to the freedoms (that you already have) on the internet. More particularly take a look at the Protocol on Racism and Xenophobia. Yes, you can express yourself on the internet but that does not mean you can do so illegally.
Same goes with downloading, uploading etc. J’accuse’s conclusion remains the same: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Gonzi’s new “Four Civil Rights for the Internet” are nothing more than a marketing ploy of appeasement. We can afford to say it here because we don’t need to pander to the people for a vote or two. Our spineless opposition is so lost in the knee-jerk pandering to the “civil rights on internet” that it has forfeit any possibility of exposing the Emperor’s latest set of clothes.
