Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1208901
Malta has experienced a radical transformation when it comes to freedom of expression. Until a few years ago, anonymity was the order of the day… yet in re- cent years, we have seen an ex- plosion of public commentary (mostly due to social media). Do you think that the recent censorship controversies arose because the pace of change has been so fast? I agree there have been chang- es; but the concept of freedom of expression still remains large- ly misunderstood in Malta. It's something we're new to; we have not yet fully understood what it means to have censorship abol- ished totally. There is a learning process involved, and we're still at the beginning. The culture of anonymity, for instance, still exists. Recently, a journalist called me for a com- ment about an issue related to my area. I duly commented; but when the article came out, I found there were four other ac- ademics who had been sounded out on the same issue. I was the only one identified by name. The rest all said they would only talk on condition of anonymity, for fear of repercussion. People are scaredy-cats, basi- cally. Why hide behind anonym- ity? If you believe something, why not say it? This is why I was, after Gerada, the first local newspaper cartoonist to sign my cartoons with my real name. To be fair, however, not everyone had that luxury. Maurice Tan- ti Burlò, for instance, couldn't sign with his real time because of Estacode: he worked within the public service at the time… hence the pseudonym 'Nalizper- la', among others. Even today, however, despite the revolutions in media tech- nology, anonymity is still there. Remember that a lot of what we call 'trolls' on social media are actually fake user profiles. If an- ything, social media has made it much easier to remain anon- ymous. It creates the possibility of presenting oneself as a real person, by creating an alias, and using a fake profile pic… and there you have it. People sud- denly think you're real… In a sense, this could be seen as an argument in favour of cen- sorship. Technology has made it so easy to communicate and disseminate 'information' – and so much of it is fake – that per- haps we do need more control over public expression. Yet you also argued against censorship in the recent Carnival contro- versy. How do reconcile this apparent contradiction? This is always the dilemma. In Maltese, we distinguish between two words when discussing 'freedom': 'libertà', and 'liberti- naġġ'. I don't think there's a di- rect translation for the latter in English: but in Maltese, it means 'the abuse of freedom'. And this is the crux of the matter. When you have freedoms, they are ob- viously going to be abused… ei- ther by people who simply don't know any better; or by people whose intention is to abuse. So the question becomes: do you curtail freedoms, to pre- vent those freedoms from being abused? My answer is 'no'; be- cause by curtailing freedom, you will also be curtailing the rights of those who deserve those free- doms, and would use them well. This is why, at its core, freedom of expression is an absolute right. Naturally, however, this is not a perspective shared by every- one. You might remember the Mohammed cartoons pub- lished by [Danish newspaper] Jyllands-Posten... I was living in Sweden at the time, and I fol- lowed the affair very closely. A lot of countries where freedom of expression is not absolute were demanding that Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in- tervene to stop newspapers from publishing that sort of cartoon. But Rasmussen said, 'No, I can't do that, because we have free- dom of expression here'. If peo- ple felt affronted or aggrieved, there are laws in place to take the matter to court. In fact, the whole point of Jyllands-Posten was precisely to test the limits of freedom of expression, to see how far they could go. The point is that, while free- dom of expression is absolute in most countries in Europe, there's also something called 'ethical lines'. Some things are not objectionable because they are illegal, but because they are perceived as being extremely 'immoral'. I use the word intentionally: be- cause morality should never de- termine the limit of free speech. Nonetheless, ethical lines do ex- ist: and the culture of a country will often determine where they are drawn; and where things suddenly become – to quote a phrase that has been used often in the past weeks – 'in bad taste'. Taste, however, is subjective. In France, for instance, there is no such thing as 'bad taste'. Yes, there will be individuals who are offended… … as was the case with the Char- lie Hebdo incident in 2015… Charlie Hebdo is another good example. They are deliberately outrageous about everything. Sometimes even I get itchy in a place I can't scratch when I read Charlie Hebdo. I – who do not consider myself a prude – feel almost prudish in the face of it. But I come from a different cul- ture. Even though I've lived in Sweden, which is quite a liber- tarian environment; and even if I am not religious, myself… see- ing religion attacked in that way – satirised so brutally – makes me question whether this sort of thing should even be allowed. But still, my answer is: yes, it should… for all the reasons I outlined earlier. Nonetheless, the 'acceptability' of what is be- ing said very often depends on a country's cultural lines. This is certainly true of the re- cent Carnival float depicting archbishop Scicluna in con- junction with a local child abuse scandal. The float's designer has defended his design, argu- ing that the satire which would be considered perfectly normal in other European countries. And yet, we were supposed to have removed censorship laws in the meantime. Doesn't this mean that the censorship re- form was just an illusion? There was definitely censor- Should freedoms be curtailed to prevent them from being abused? For cartoonist and senior lecturer Prof GORG MALLIA, the answer is an emphatic 'No' Satire must be brutal… but also honest Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 FEBRUARY 2020 INTERVIEW PHOTO BY JAMES BIANCHI