Free speech should not be limited to artistic expression

Comments

1. 

   Banquo

   June 20, 2023

   I am glad you are not falling into the trap of ‘supporting art’, Mark. What the government is trying to do is keep censorship but at the same time make a carve out for dances and circuses (things the government does not feel threatened by).

   Useful idiots in the media and in the Opposition will no doubt fall over themselves to ‘support art’, and, therefore, the new law. The Nationalist Party has, bizarrely, already shown support for the bill, even though it has not been given a copy of it to read yet.

   What is interesting to me in this whole saga is that much of the ink spilt on the Gordon Manch? case has been to denounce Manch? for being thin skinned, not to support the comedians’ right to express themselves. Hating Manch? is much easier than supporting free expression, because, if you base your arguments in favour of the comedians on free expression, then you would have to explain why a comedian can say that “we should carpet-bomb River of Love” but a priest cannot say that “being gay is worse than being possessed”.

   The argument in favour of one comment but not the other would seem to hinge on the idea that the comedian is ‘on the right side of history’ because the majority of society is now secular and does not care about religious superstitions, and the priest is ‘on the wrong side of history’ because that same secular society is very supportive of gays. Even the biggest LGBT advocate can see that backing free expression on whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ according to the majority is not really free expression at all. The cunning plan to sidestep the weak argument is, therefore, to specifically allow ?artistic expression? (to come across as liberal) while still banning any other expression they do not like under other laws.

   However, what they are putting forward is still a weak argument, because now we have to dispute what ?artistic expression? is. Are we saying that, had Fr David Muscat written his silly comments about gays in the form of a poem, he would have been exempt from prosecution? What about a television show in which an interviewee claims that he is ?ex gay?? Surely progressive minds appreciate the television format as an art form? Or maybe some shows are artistic and others are not? If so, who decides? Are scripted television shows artistic and unscripted ones not? Where does that leave improvisors? If not all television shows are artistic, are all shows performed on a stage artistic? What if a show is not performed on a stage but perfomed in a street or a village square instead? Is it still considered ?artistic expression?? Is a protest (with or without home-made colourful placards) a form of artistic expression? What about a panel discussion? Which religious rituals are artistic and which ones are not?

   Let?s turn to that most venerable of artistic expressions, the written word. When is the written word ?artistic expression? according to Owen Bonnici? In 1953, Winston Churchill was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for ?his mastery of biographical and historical description?. That seems to suggest that history-based books like Mark Camilleri?s A Rent Seeker?s Paradise are as artistic as his satirical novels. Seeing that newspapers and blogs like this one also cover history and biography, I suppose one can call them artistic too. Or are the courts going to have to decide on which writing is artistic and which writing is not according to how masterfully each entry is written? Maybe one article is artistic and the other is not; maybe there can be even chapters in a book which are deemed artistic and others which are not. The prison guard who wrote a Nazi-sympathising book may truly be out of luck, or maybe not. Who knows?

   In short, Owen Bonnici?s ?cunning plan? to carve out special rules for art, rather than supporting free thought and expression in general, is an unworkable mess. Now, the courts will be arbitrarily deciding what constitutes ?artistic expression? and what does not, and, therefore which speech deserves to be protected and which does not. And this still does not answer the question why ?artistic expression? is being singled out for special protection instead of, say, ?journalistic expression?, ?theological expression?, ?philosophical expression?, or any other sort of expression you may think of.

   But we know the answer to that question. Everybody likes jokes, so supporting them is easy and non-threatening, especially when the butt of the jokes are minority faith communities with ?backward? beliefs. Supporting jokesters gives the government a veneer of liberalism, distracting the populace from authoritarian press reforms being passed in the name of fighting cyberbullying.

   Reply