A court decision to fine a social media influencer for a “joke” suggesting a circus should be burned down could represent a risk to free speech, a legal expert and a former police inspector have warned.
On Friday, 22-year-old content creator Sarah Michelle Angelica Grech was found guilty of threats and incitement to commit a crime after posting a short video to Instagram in response to witnessing an alleged act of animal cruelty.
The video shows her asking her dog whether they should “go burn the circus” after seeing a live duck being thrown at audience members several times at a circus in Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq, an incident Grech reported to the police and the Animal Welfare Department.
Despite her lawyer’s argument that the video was a satirical meme and the threats not credible because Grech was speaking to her dog, the magistrate disagreed and fined her €1,000.
Commenting on the case, former police inspector Norbert Ciappara said, “my concern is freedom of speech and the way social media is going”.
“If she had expressed those thoughts socially, there would have been no consequences, but because it’s social media it’s treated differently... that’s the danger,” he said.
Stressing that while some could view Grech’s words as “unethical or irresponsible”, it was not clear whether they were criminal.
“To have a crime, you must have the intention to do something illegal,” he said, adding Grech’s “age and maturity” should be taken into account.
“I would have investigated the case but asked my officers to check for evidence... did she plan to burn down the tent?” said Ciappara, who is also a former assistant police commissioner.
Describing her words on social media as “so-called threats”, Ciappara suggested that “maybe the law needs to be overhauled”.
I would have investigated the case but asked my officers to check for evidence... did she plan to burn down the tent?
When contacted, human rights lawyer and former MP Therese Comodini Cachia quipped: “It feels like the legislator doesn’t need to reintroduce criminal libel,” a charge removed from the law in 2018.
Warning that a number of recent cases such as that of Grech could have a “chilling effect” on public discussion by encouraging self-censorship, Comodini Cachia said the law governing such cases should be reviewed and its application reassessed to see whether the right balance is being reached.
Describing the government as “seeming unwilling to review whether freedom of expression is being respected and effectively guaranteed,” she said it was up to parliament to review whether the principle was being “adhered to or abused”.
Likening the government’s defence of satirists facing legal challenges from River of Love pastor Gordon John Manché last year to a “public relations exercise”, Comodini Cachia said that while changes to the law last July meant comics were protected, Grech and others are not.
Article 339(3) of the Code, dealing with the contravention of insults and threats, was amended in such a manner as to “allow for freedom of artistic expression” particularly so as not to “hinder artistic, satirical, comic or cultural expression”, the legislation says.
Comodini Cachia said that while she could not discuss Grech’s case directly without seeing all the evidence, it represented a “complex issue” that needed further consideration.
“There are only two solutions: for parliament to review the law to ensure legal compliance with freedom of expression, or for individuals affected to claim their human rights are being impinged,” she said.