Tag: censorship

Categories
Mediawatch

A Time to Gag

Anglu Farrugia will cry crocodile tears at the Labour Party General Council. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will resort to reporting “evil bloggers” on his Facebook wall. Franco Debono will include a new law regulating evil attacks in his program of legislation (which program, having its hours counted, threatens to be the largest amount of laws proposed in the shortest time). General appeals and not-so-subtle implications will be made that the PM should do something about the bloggers and columnists who are resorting to “personal attacks”. And we all get carried away.

Your average listener or reader will not hesitate to chime in with the scarcely researched tautology of “Yes, there should be some form of decency, we have gone too far”. But have we? Or rather – what kind of legislation and control are these paladins of democracy seeking? While the general public showed the predictable kind of ambivalence when the laws dubbed as the New Censorship laws were published the sweeping statements about controlling other fields of expression than the arts multiplied.

First. A note about the new laws. They have nothing to do with such issues as libel and slander. What we have there is a new system of rating theatre and cinema that includes an element of self-discipline. This approach is highly commendable from a libertarian point of view because it emphasises (and exalts) the individual capacity to take responsible decisions. The theatre producer is invited to “censor” his own piece before any official scissors come into play. Self-control, self-censorship – an ability to assess what is and what is not acceptable in wider society : that is the heritage of an intelligent, emancipated and responsible society. Are we ready for the show?

Well, insofar as the political arena is concerned it looks like it is going to be tough. I am of the opinion that the current laws (if we DO have to look at legislation rather than policy first) are more than enough. It is a combination of publish (responsibly) and be damned. Defence in libel includes the “exceptio veritatis” (exception of truth) – the defence that is based on the idea that whatever was said about someone can be seen to be the truth. This is sometimes the reason why somebody who claims to have been libelled fails to go to court for fear of the “libel” being proven to have been the truth.

The “exceptio veritatis” is also itself controlled. While proving that a statement that is being scrutinised for libel or slander might stand strong if it is proved to be true, the truth is not a useful defence in the case of invasion of privacy. Stating that a Minister hosted a party with drugs freely available is defensible with the truth exception – i.e. if the fact is proven to be true. Saying that a Minister has the backside the side of a lorry it is an invasion of privacy and the mere fact that it is true (though even there – the exaggerated hyperbole is such that even the truth is obviously non-existent) will not suffice as a defence.

The fact of the matter is that libel, slander and defamation laws when applied constitute a solid last resort in the battlefield. On the other hand calling for more regulation is a perverse counter-productive move that demonstrates an ignorance of the law and, sadly, an intent to revert to the times of “Indħil Barrani” when our laws were tailor made to serve the interests of whoever needed to gag uncomfortable elements.

Check out again the Newt Gingrich video (top right) starting from 2’20”. Gingrich is asked a very uncomfortable question during a prime primary debate. It is an issue that is very private and Gingrich’s reaction says it all. “I would not like to answer it but I will”. Gingrich goes on to tackle the method of questioning and shoots some repartees of his own towards the press that has peddled the story. There and then. No courts. No gagging orders. Pure and simple intelligent response. And then the question is left to the voters to judge and value. Will voters give more importance to the story of Newt wanting an open relationship or to the fact that Newt was considered enough of a heavyweight to warrant a relentless barrage of mediatic coverage of the fact?

Which brings me to the question of politicians and privacy. Unfortunately the risk of reneging on most of what is private in their lives is a risk that politicians (and footballers, and actors, and prominent businessmen) take in a calculated manner more and more. When campaigns are built on family values and when consorts and children are used in campaigns to be paraded as some form of assets to the main storyline then we should not be surprised that the vultures in the press will be probing to examine whether this too is a facade. When you commit errors during a campaign and these are highlighted, parodied and caricaturised you’d be stupid to claim that these are personal attacks.

Our democracy does not need gagging orders and stricter regulation. Our democracy needs intelligent citizens and … if it is not asking for too much … intelligent politicians.

Categories
Mediawatch

The State of Censorship (a preview)

Stop “personal attacks”. That was PM Gonzi’s appeal to the nation. “Appeal” is a keyword there. It says a lot about “oligarchies” and “power”. The newly announced censorship provisions (that incidentally deal with a fraction of what we refer to as censorship and expression in daily parlance) are not even law yet but many jumped the gun drawing conclusions between the PM’s appeal and the new laws.

So. Last night I watched “The Devil’s Double” a movie based on the true story of the real-life double of Uday Saddam Hussein. There was Uday, son of the Iraqi dictator lording it all over  Baghdad. He did what he liked and that included driving up to school gates and picking up 14 year old girls to take home and rape. In Hussein’s Iraq the only rule was “do not mess with the Hussein family” or they will mess you up.  It was not funny. In essence if Uday did not like you he turned into the horrible nightmare of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist – without the laughs. “Silence…I keel you”.

And Gonzi “appeals” to the nation. To everybody. For he cannot do more than that. He should not be able to. I cannot fathom what supposedly intelligent beings like Saviour Balzan could mean when they come up with the legal lie that Lawrence Gonzi has some power to shut people up. And by people I mean the obvious targets like Daphne Caruana Galizia. What rubbish. What delusional stupidity. I’ll have more to say and to explain as to why all this is rubbish later. Meanwhile I will ask you to watch the video that is in the top corner of this post (right). Forward it to 2’20” and watch the exchange between the debate host and Republican Primaries Candidate Newt Gingrich. J’accuse will comment on this later in the day and explain what it has to do with much of what is happening in our wider political-media circles.

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant:

Categories
Mediawatch

Fresh Basil

Wandering around the streets of the island on the various errands that have become onerous due to the forthcoming festive occasion I couldn’t help but notice a few fresh frescoes painted on public walls. These graffitti consisted mainly of slogans such as “Censorship offends me” or “I have seen the great minds of my generation killed by madness”. The former was on a wall outside University and the second on the floor of the slope near Balluta church. Both slogans were signed “Basil” and this must be Malta’s very own Banksy. J’accuse has long called for this kind of affirmative street art that can shake people into thinking as they go about their daily affairs…. Basil is a good start. There is much more the “artistic” community can get up to beyond the whinging about censorship and pandering to journalists hoping to fill a few columns with straightforward reporting.

Hats off then to Basil and may we see more of his/her works decorating giving us street food for thought.

 

Categories
Politics Values

Literature in the Court

The AG’s office has appealed against the Realtà decision that had acquitted Mark Camilleri and Alex Vella Gera. Insofar as reporting and public reaction is concerned we are back to square one – a general feeling of disgust and anger at the fact that this kind of case still exists in this day and age.

James Debono explored the angle of “political responsibility” in his blog on Maltatoday and struggled to create a causal link between the mechanics of the application and interpretation of the law by the judicial branch and the pursuance of the law by the executive. In any other case having the government weighing in on the AG’s decision to appeal would have led many an observer to cry foul. In this case the absence of any such pressure is enough to indict the government with the accusation of drifting “to the loony right”.

There’s a less emotional and more rational line to be patiently analysed beyond the confusing smoke of war. That line sees the Realtà case as a test case for the definition of the concepts of “obscenity and pornography” in our courts. We are not the first and will not be the last society to examine these standard and the laws continue to evolve ever since Edmund Curll was convicted in 1727 for publishing Venus in the Cloister or The Nun in her Smock under the common law offence of disturbing the King’s peace (see Wikipedia below).

In many ways the AG’s appeal was inevitable. The original judgement, although positive insofar as the anti-censorship movement is concerned, did not exhaust all questions on the matter. It is not just the the definition of what is obscene that remains fluid but also the exception that is allowed – in this case literature for the public good:

[…]Izda oggett ma jitqiesx li hu pornografiku jew oxxen jekk dan ikun fl-interess tax-xjenza, tal-letteratura, ta’ l-arti jew tat-taghlim jew ta’ xi ghanijiet ohra ta’ interess generali, u sakemm dan ikun tghall-gid pubbliku. – Criminal Code, article 208(3)

The Magistrate’s Court found that Li Tkisser Sewwi does not in any way fall under pornography or public obscenity definitions “ghaliex bl-ebda mod ma jista’ jitqies li l-iskop jew l-ghan tal-kitba huwa li jqanqal eccitament sesswali jew li jikkorrompi qarrej ordinarju”. (in no way can it be considered that the aim of the writing was to sexually excite or corrupt an ordinary reader). It also found that “the fact that writing is shocking or provokes disgust in the reader does not qualify it as obscene or pornographic”. The Court further found that the prosecution had failed to prove any damage caused by the writing.

The Realtà case is an acquittal for failure to prove that the writing in question qualifies as obscene or pornographic. It leaves many questions open. What is obscene and pornographic? More than that, by finding an absence of pornographic or obscene characteristics the Court did not need to engage with the question of when pornography or obscenity is (in the words of the abovequoted article 208(3) exception) “in the interest of (…) literature (…) and considered to be in the general public’s interest”.

The AG’s appeal might oblige the Appeals Court either to tackle the issue or to confirming the Magistrate Court’s decision. In both cases we could only have more clarity on the state of the law in question. Appealing to the government to intervene – or laying the blame for the appeal at the foot of the government skirts the question and avoids clear answers.

If any pressure is to be made on any part of our system of the state, it is on our legislature – and its lack of reactivity to define further the standards of obscenity and pornography that are “acceptable” in our society. I fear that this kind of question will not only stump the loony right but also the false left in this country of ours that has hitherto proven to be very comfortable with cheap talk but unable to grasp the bull by the horns and suggest concrete action.

We may have a loony right government but we also have a fake left machine that is still to discover that its core of pro-British, religious conservatives will prove to be the downfall of all its progressive rhetoric. Then again none of this might happen if the Appeal Court’s interpretation satisfies all and sundry. Who knows… the mechanics of the separation of powers could actually work!

From Wikipedia:
Laws on obscenity and sexual content

Obscenity law in England and Wales is currently governed by the various Obscene Publications Acts, but obscenity laws go back much further into the English common law.

The conviction in 1727 of Edmund Curll for the publication of Venus in the Cloister or The Nun in her Smock under the common law offence of disturbing the King’s peace was the first conviction for obscenity in Great Britain, and set a legal precedent for other convictions.

A defence against the charge of obscenity on the grounds of literary merit was introduced in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The OPA was tested in the high-profile obscenity trial brought against Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover (by D. H. Lawrence) in 1960. The book was found to have merit, and Penguin Books was found not guilty — a ruling which granted far more freedom to publish explicit material. This trial did not establish the ‘merit’ defence as an automatic right; several controversial books and publications were the subject of British court cases throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. Last Exit to Brooklyn, a 1964 novel by American author Hubert Selby, Jr. was subject of a private prosecution in 1966.

There is a substantial overlap between legal erotic literature and illegal pornography, with the distinction traditionally made in the English-speaking courts on the basis of perceived literary merit. Purely textual pornography has not been prosecuted since the Inside Linda Lovelace trial of 1976. However, in October 2008, a man was charged, but later cleared, under the Obscene Publications Act for allegedly posting fictional written material to the Internet describing kidnap, rape and murder of pop group Girls Aloud. In late August 2005, the government announced that it plans to criminalise possession of extreme pornographic material, rather than just publication.

Almost all adult stores in the UK are forbidden from having their goods in open display under the Indecent Displays Act 1981, which means the shop fronts are often boarded up or covered in posters. A warning sign must be clearly shown at the entrance to the store, and no items can be visible from the street. No customer can be under eighteen years old. The Video Recordings Act 1984 introduced the R18-rated classification for videos that are only available in licensed sex shops, but hardcore pornographic magazines are available in newsagents in some places. The Ann Summers chain of lingerie and sex shops recently won the right to advertise for workers in job centres, which was originally banned under restrictions on what advertising could be carried out by the sex industry

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

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
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Arts

NippleJesus (something clever)

The reactionary movement to the restrictions on the freedom of expression has taken different forms and attracted its own limited amount (if we really want to navel gaze) of controversial moments. J’accuse came under-fire when we took the opportunity to highlight the relative futility of certain modes of protest in today’s day and ager – particularly with regards to the over-reliance on facebook clicks and petitions and on the resorting to the over-worked medium of marches in Valletta.

Our criticism was particularly harsh (and provocative) because this ‘anti-oppression & police-state‘ movement does not (and should not) concern a bunch of University students. At least it does not only concern them. The whole aspirant artistic and intellectual non-fraternity is also deep in the muck and our criticism was also a direct result of the disappointment registered seeing the paucity of reactionary ideas. This led to the usual pooh-poohing of bloggers who can only write “something clever” on their blog rather than march up Republic Street waving megaphones.

We also asked “who cares?” as this is a genuine worry that comes up time and time again. It is stronger in the case of art than in the case of politics for example for art does not even have a monopoly on 90% of the nation who look upon politics as another way to vent their cultural genetic tendency towards fanaticism. The worry is that not many people do and that the weakness of the challenge to the development of a police state is also due to the fact that so long as the people get the “panem et circenses” that they are used to then they will not protest if Virgil and Horace are locked up for obscenity.

One of the summer events last month in Luxembourg was an adaptation of a Nick Hornby short story called “Nipple Jesus“. The blurb on the agenda magazine described it as follows:

Via a monologue (sometimes humorous) given by a security guard whose duty it is to guard a museum work of art judged to be scandalous, a number of essential questions on the function of art and what should or should not be shown are raised.

Unfortunately the play was shown in Luxembourgish so I could not attend that particular performance but I did google the short story on the net. Now I do have some qualms about the copyright nature of the material but on the other hand the story is too good to be lost. You may find it in pdf version at this blog called “Tainted Canvas“. This is definitely school textbook material (yes with all the “fucks” and two “cunts” thrown in for good measure). The controversial painting in question is a huge mosaic depicting the suffering Christ on the Cross  (with emphasis on the suffering). The twist (and this is no spoiler) is that the mosaic is made of many photos of women’s nipples (“bizla” in Maltese).

Follow Dave the bouncer’s reasoning throughout the story and draw you own conclusions. I loved it. One of my favourite extracts is the bit where the bouncer reflects on the second wave of visitors – those who have come expressly to criticise the work of art having read about it (and having been provoked into not liking it) by the media circus.

Nothing much happened at first. A steady stream of people came in and looked, and a couple of them sort of clucked, but what’s really clever about the picture is that you have to get close up to get offended, because if you stand at the back of the room you can’t see anything apart from the face of Christ. So it makes the cluckers look like right plonkers, because they have to go and shove their nose up against the painting to see the nipples, and so you end up thinking they’re perverts. You know, first they have to ignore the sign on the door telling them not to go in, and then they have to walk the length of the room, and they go, “Oh, disgusting.” So they’re really looking out for it.

Magic. Read it. Now.

Nick Hornby giving a public reading at Central...
Image via Wikipedia

Blurb by Maskenada for the Luxembourgish performance:

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta