What does the Front Against Censorship want?

Proposal 1

To remove Article 163 of the Criminal Code, put in effect in 1933, which states

that:

“Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months.“

Similarly, the Front Proposes removal of article 164 of the Criminal Code, which imposes similar constraints on criticising other religions recognised by the State. This article states that:

“Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against any cult tolerated by law, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to three months.“

These two acts are direct attack on criticism against the Roman Catholic Church and other religions, on artistic freedom, on events like the Carnival festivities and on anyone who would like to satirically present Roman Catholicism or other religions for critical and/or artistic purposes.

Proposal 2

To change the definition of pornography in article 208 of the Criminal Code and de-criminalise it. Under the current law, that which is considered “obscene and pornographic“ is decided by a particular parliamentary committee. The only time this committee met was in 1975. The definition given was “Work is obscene or pornographic when its dominant feature is the exploitation of, or unnecessary emphasis on, sex, criminality, fear, cruelty and violence.“ We propose that this definition should be changed to any product which graphically depicts sexual acts with the intent of causing sexual arousal. The distribution and production of pornography should not be illegal as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law.

Under the present law there is a prison sentence of not more than six months or a fine of not more than €465.87, or a prison sentence and fine together. This sentence is given for “The distribution, acquisition, circulation, manufacture, printing, import or export of pornographic or obscene printed materials, drawings, photographs, film, books, card or writing...etc.“ This means that under these criteria, classical literature found inside libraries is illegal. Among other things it also means that the Maltese artist is bound by law concerning what he can include in his fiction.

Proposal 3

To remove article 7 of the Press Act which states that:

''Whosoever, by any means mentioned in article 3, directly or indirectly, or by the use of equivocal expressions, shall injure public morals or decency shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.''

This article can be used against literature which deals with erotic and sexual issues such as it is being used in the case against Ir-Realta'. Moreover, what is obscene and what is not is also subjective to the individual, and can not be defined objectively by means of the law.

Proposal 4

To abolish the role of a centrally-appointed Classification Board for theatre performances and film, which has the authority to block and censor and to establish a set of criteria for self-classification in the performing arts based on a consultation exercise among the performing arts community. All classification systems (including self-classification for performances and classification for cinema) are to be based on a list of established and transparent criteria, which should be made publicly available, and which should be re-evaluated from time to time in the light of international developments in these art forms.

Proposal 5

To remove the wording of article 13 of the Broadcasting Act which states that ''nothing is included in the programmes which offends against religious sentiment, good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling'' and replace it with a paragraph which allows such mentioned content from 10pm onwards. Such content is already widely accessible to the people on Italian and other foreign television channels, making such content de facto legal for foreign broadcasters. This law is therefore discriminatory against Maltese television stations which cannot compete with foreign channels, should they choose such a way of doing so, on the local market.