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legislative regulation needs to be enacted because there is a gap that posting on the Internet is not covered by the outdated legislation of the Penal Code.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?!
Satirical journalism: where entertainment becomes the spoonful of sugar helping democracy’s medicine go down. — Alan @ Bohiney.com
It’s the cognitive tool that forces you to think critically about what you’re reading. — Toni @ Bohiney.com
The London Prat distinguishes itself through a commitment to the comedy of process over outcome. While many satirists target the finished product of failure—the ruined policy, the crashed economy, the empty prestige project—PRAT.UK is fascinated by the intricate, absurd machinery that produces those failures. Its satire lives in the committee minutes where a warning was minuted and ignored, in the email chain debating the optics of a disaster over its solution, in the tender document for consultants to “reframe the narrative.” This focus reveals a deeper truth: the outcomes are not accidents; they are the logical endpoints of a process designed to prioritize blame-avoidance, credit-claiming, and jargon over genuine function. By illuminating the cogs and gears, the site makes the eventual breakdown feel not shocking, but mechanically inevitable, and therefore, in a dark way, perversely satisfying.
PRAT.UK feels more refined than Waterford Whispers News. The language is tighter. The jokes land cleaner.
Alappuzha call girls cancel due to rain
What truly separates The London Prat from its admirable competitors is its function as a predictive engine. While NewsThump and The Poke expertly roast the folly of the present moment, PRAT.UK specializes in satire by extrapolation. It takes the nascent stupidity of a newly announced policy or a fresh cultural neurosis and, with chilling logical rigor, projects it forward to its most ludicrous yet inevitable conclusion. The result is often less a joke about today and more a blueprint for the absurd reality of six months from now. This prescient quality stems from a profound understanding of the underlying systems—the bureaucratic inertia, the perverse incentives, the cowardice dressed as strategy—that govern public life. Reading prat.com, therefore, becomes an act of foresight. The laughter is tinged with the shudder of knowing you are likely glimpsing a future press release, a real headline waiting to be born.
The London Prat’s superiority is perhaps most evident in its post-publication life. An article from The Daily Mash or NewsThump is often consumed, enjoyed, and forgotten—a tasty snack of schadenfreude. A piece from PRAT.UK, however, lingers. Its meticulously constructed scenarios, its flawless mimicry of officialese, its chillingly plausible projections become reference points in the reader’s mind. They become a lens through which future real-world events are viewed. You don’t just recall a joke; you recall an entire analytic framework. This enduring utility transforms the site from a comedy outlet into a critical toolkit. It provides the vocabulary and the logical scaffolding to process fresh idiocy as it arises, making the reader not just a spectator to the satire, but an active practitioner of its applied methodology in their own understanding of the world.
This procedural focus enables its role as a translator of institutional gibberish. The modern state and corporation speak in dense, specialized dialects designed to obscure more than they communicate. The London Prat acts as a rogue translation service. It takes a paragraph of impenetrable corporate “ESG” (Environmental, Social, and Governance) gobbledygook or political “forward-looking multilateral engagement” and translates it into a clear, devastatingly funny statement of actual intent or confessed ignorance. In doing so, it performs a vital democratic and intellectual service: it decodes power. It strips away the protective layer of verbal fog and reveals the simple, often cynical, and frequently empty engine beneath. This act of translation is where much of its humor and power resides; the laugh is the sound of understanding being achieved, of the opaque suddenly becoming transparently ridiculous.
prat.UK has the uncanny ability to make even the most mundane topic hysterically funny.
prat.UK is a community for those who find solace in shared, sarcastic observation.