In early July, the country’s Parliamentary Committee of Legal Affairs of the House of Representatives deliberated on the proposed amendment which criminalizes spreading “fake news,” “insults,” and dissemination of “obscene photos and pictures” online. If accepted, these offenses would be reclassified no longer as a civil offence but as a criminal offense, with a maximum penalty of five years in jail.
Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides and Committee Chair Nicos Tornaritis, who is also chief of the Cyprus Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said at the time that this is “the first step” towards protecting the Cypriot public from fake news.
Presumably the proposal has faced backlash. In-Cyprus reported on Savvides’ remarks to press reporters, responding to accusations that he claims are misrepresenting what he is proposing. The paper reported:
Regarding recent statements made to the Cyprus News Agency (CNA) [8th April 2024], in which he expressed support for the enactment of legislation criminalising objectionable behaviours on the Internet and Mass Media, which – as reported by a journalist – sparked discussion, and when asked if he still insists that these behaviours should be criminalised, the Attorney General responded:
“They have been misunderstood and continue to be misunderstood, perhaps intentionally, some statements I have made about an issue which, in my opinion, is both straightforward and in line with the desire of the majority of people. There is full respect, at least from me personally, for freedom of speech and expression.”
“My position in favour of a specific bill, which has been oscillating between the Parliament and the Ministry of Justice since 2020, is because I believe that as a State, we should draw the line between freedom of speech and recklessness. And I am not referring to matters of criticism.
“If one reads the bill as it has been amended after many sessions in Parliament, you will see that this bill, in its current form, is very limited in scope and refers to manifestly threatening and other condemnable behaviours, which, if done differently and not through the Internet, would be contrary to the law.”
“This legislative regulation needs to be enacted because there is a gap that posting on the Internet is not covered by the outdated legislation of the Penal Code. I believe that the way the bill is drafted and the exceptions included in the bill, there is no reason for anyone to reasonably worry, either about the issue of addressing fake news or about the issue of addressing manifestly threatening or insulting behaviour.”
“Every person has the right to criticise. Harsh criticism. It is a right that has been recognised even by our country’s courts that freedom of speech allows even harsh criticism of public figures. But crossing the line with insults and threats against people’s lives, you go beyond a line that I believe needs to be legally regulated. This is my personal position, and it is up to the Parliament to decide how to proceed.”
When asked if the mentioned bill excludes the Mass Media, the head of the Legal Service replied:
I believe that the Mass Media have serious and professional journalists, whom I do not believe will ever reach the point of resorting to insults or deliberate dissemination of fake news to deceive the public. So, I do not think that journalists, the Media you refer to, have anything to fear from this bill. It is so explicitly worded that it does not cover either the expression of opinion or criticism.
In response to a journalist’s statement that some perceive this bill as a gagging measure, and when asked if the bill will affect journalists who criticise public figures, Savvides said:
“Let’s not mix two different things. This bill has nothing to do with expressing dissatisfaction or criticism. It does not affect the issue of exercising criticism at all. As it has been formulated – and I understand it will soon be presented to Parliament – it deals with threats, obvious threats, obvious fake news – and there are defences when there is good faith.”
“So, it primarily concerns malicious [actions], and I do not think there is anything that a person should fear that they might inadvertently fall into a mistake in the course of performing their duties. In any case, any criminal prosecution for these offences will require the consent of the Attorney General. So, private individuals who have been offended will not be able to proceed with private prosecutions.”
But a number of groups are opposing this legislation. The journalists’ union and the publishers’ associations have strongly opposed the amendment, arguing that it criminalizes “journalistic work through the back door.”
Writers for Cyprus Mail have shared their discontent with the bill:
Supporters of the amendment may have good intentions, but they should also consider that the amendment of the law could be used to suppress free speech. The prospect of someone who wrote a comment deemed insulting by a politician, facing criminal charges is a threat to democracy.
Such a law would also go against EU directives that in effect consider politicians and officials legitimate targets for ultra-critical comments, that could be regarded as offensive.
There is a libel law for protecting an individual’s reputation, with the offender paying hefty damages if found guilty. This is a perfectly adequate way of dealing with defamatory comments, while directing insults at someone, in most cases, should not even be an offence.
If for example a journalist writes that a minister is ‘incompetent, incapable of performing their duties’ would the offender face criminal charges for insulting comments? And who will decide what constitutes an ‘offensive’ or ‘insulting’ comment justifying criminal charges?
Dr. Natalie Alkiviadou, a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech project at Vanderbilt University, also blasted the proposal as “absolutely horrifying for free speech, for media pluralism, and for democracy.”
Criminalizing fake news is, to say the least, highly problematic for a number of reasons. It has a “chilling effect” and it causes a self-censorship by media and civil society organizations, activists and average citizens. Moreover, the concept of fake news is highly ambiguous and contested which reduces the certainty and clarity of its regulation. Furthermore, criminalizing fake speech is, in fact, counterproductive as it is not reducing the content but “often draws more attention to it.
She wrote
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Cyprus has apparently been debating this bill since 2023, so it is possible this bill gets shot down again, hopefully.
Job 6:25 How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove? [26] Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind?
The U.S. and many other Western nations are effectively already doing this, but without an actual law on the books. The U.S. has to continue to maintain the illusion that we are a “free” nation with freedom of expression, but anyone who pays attention and knows the litany of things that are technically barred from being spoken publicly and online understands that free speech has long since been dead.
Corporate media – which works hand-in-hand with the stakeholders and corporations, governments and the Fed, and the Jesuits and other secret societies – is the purveying voice that guides and manipulates the masses’ actions, as with social media pundits and influencers; and independent voices are suppressed, blackballed, canceled and silenced.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Shouldn’t they first figure out whether Cyprus is Greek or Turkish. Lol
Who decides what is fake?!