Censorship Law in Malta

Culture Minister Mario de Marco has told the Maltese Parliament that there would be a shift from a preventive system of censorship to a system of self-classification.

Speaking during the debate in the second reading of the Bill amending various laws dealing with the classification of films and stage productions, he said theatrical companies in Malta would be able to classify their own works.

The Bill proposed to transfer the laws regulating classification from the ministry responsible for the police to that responsible for culture. Such regulations would be amalgamated with the Malta Council for Culture and the Arts Act.

Dr de Marco said the legislation would only serve as a framework and the arts sector would become completely self-regulatory. Nevertheless, the Bill did not affect other legislation and essential rules such as laws protecting minorities, minors and those guarding against libel. He said such laws would remain applicable to the theatrical and film sectors.

Turning to the film sector, Dr De Marco said that new age classification benchmarks were being introduced. The Bill would not change the requirement of obtaining a certificate before viewing, since it was only for theatrical performance that this requirement would no longer be needed.

Malta's Ombudsman has issued recommendations on the composition and functions on the new film classification board which will replace the Board of Film and State Censors.

The recommendations were made as the Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, considered a complaint by KRS film importers against the chairman of the current board. KRS complained that in 2010, 28% of the films released locally were given a higher rating that in the UK.

Judge Said Pullicino noted that the proposed legislation will abolish the Film and Stage Classification Board and create a separate Board of Film Age-Classification, with similar functions to those possessed by the existing Board. In terms of the proposed regulations, the Film Board will consist of a chairperson and a number of 3-7 members who are appointed by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and the Environment.

The Ombudsman said the persons appointed to the film board should broadly represent the Maltese community. It should include a mixture of men and women with as close to a gender balance as possible, incorporating persons of different ages so that there is a reasonable spread of age amongst the members. At least one of the members should be well versed in issues affecting children and young people, either as parent or through his previous employment or other activities he is involved in.

The Ombudsman noted that the proposed regulations, like those currently in force, mention that the classification of films is to be carried out in accordance with guidelines to be drawn up by the Film Board but the draft legislation is silent on whether these should be made available, not only to applicants but also to the general public.

The Ombudsman said the film distributors and the public had the right to know what the guidelines drawn up by the Board will be.

The new rules also require the Film Board to issue, concurrently with the classification, notices to the public containing additional information as to the content of the films classified -- a practice which is already in place in many countries and which is indispensable since it enables consumers to know which classifiable elements (e.g. coarse language, violence, drug use, nudity etc) have led to the classification decision.

He stressed that loosening state control on censorship does not equate to decriminalisation. Actions violating the new regulations could still be considered, in certain circumstances, an offence punishable at law. The Commissioner of Police still retained the ultimate right to order a suspension of any screening and the closure of any cinema for a period not exceeding fifteen days for reasons of public order or morality or for non-compliance with any of these Regulations .

The 'furore' over censorship that marked 2011's ban on the play Stitching has inspired a draft censorship law. Tourism and culture minister Mario de Marco unveiled a draft law for the self-regulation of theatre productions.

De Marco said a new system of self-regulation will allow producers to set age limits for audiences on new guidelines.

A new four-member guidance board will issue guidelines to be adopted by stage producers when awarding an age-classification to the production and to assist producers who seek its counsel by suggesting appropriate age-classifications for their stage productions, or confirming the age-classification given by the producer and director in the first instance.

The board will be chaired by Adrian Mamo, chairman of the Malta Council for Culture and Arts.

The proposed roles of the guidance board also include the presentation of complaints from the general public about the age-classification given to a production with the Board issuing its advice on whether the age-classification should be reviewed or not. Such advice is not binding on the producer and director, however it must be made public in order to better inform the public.

The government has now launched for public consultation the amendments to the Stage and Film Classification. The consultation process is open for a period of three weeks and ends on the 7 February 2012.

Amendments on the film industry include the reconstitution of the existing Board to a Board of Film Age-Classification, which shall be responsible for the a priori classification of films. The Board of Film Age-Classification will be placed under a duty to publish the age-classifications given to films, citing the reasons for such a classification. The board will no longer be responsible for theatre censorship.

The proposed amendments also include the creation of a film Appeals Board to hear appeals from the aggrieved party in connection with the age-classification given to a named film.

Malta's Labour leader Joseph Muscat has admitted that his party did not mean to back a legal amendment that has introduced tougher penalties for the distribution and production of pornography.

He said the controversial amendment to Article 208 of the Criminal Code, approved by Parliament in April, was passed as a measure of stealth by the government, having been sold to the Opposition as part of a package of laws to strengthen penalties for child pornography .

The amendment to the article was made together with various other amendments to laws mostly relating to child pornography.

Admitting that his party had not carefully evaluated what it approved, Dr Muscat said his MPs would not have backed the legal changes had they known they did not have anything to do with child pornography or protecting vulnerable people.

The Maltese parliamentary committee set up in January to define what constituted an obscenity is still at the initial stages , according to Labour MP Owen Bonnici, who had pushed for its establishment.

Dr Bonnici, who sits on the committee with MPs Evarist Bartolo, Beppe Fenech Adami and Francis Zammit Dimech, said there had been preliminary talks but he hoped work shifted up a gear soon and was optimistic there would be progress.

The definition of what constitutes an obscenity, last updated in 1975, became even more pertinent this week after an amendment to the Criminal Code came into force on Friday raising the maximum penalty for distributing or displaying pornographic or obscene material from imprisonment for six months and a fine of €465.87 to 12 months and a fine of €3,000. The amendment law was approved unanimously in Parliament on June 15.

The Front Against Censorship lambasted the changes, pointing out that, in the absence of a clear definition of obscenity, the law could be used to prosecute cases such as that of student editor Mark Camilleri and writer Alex Vella Gera, who landed in court over a satirical story detailing the sexual exploits of a man in explicit language on issue eight of campus magazine Ir-Realtà.

The Front said it was disappointed at the fact that instead of repealing the harsh prison terms, which would be the shame of any European nation, the law has actually been amended to increase them . Whoever voted in favour of this Act not only agreed with the draconian proceedings taken against the student newspaper but also wanted to punish such activities more harshly .

It suggested changing the definition of pornography from work featuring the exploitation of, or unnecessary emphasis on, sex, criminality, fear, cruelty and violence to any product which graphically depicts sexual acts with the intent of causing sexual arousal .

It also called for the removal of articles in the Criminal Code imposing a jail term for anyone vilifying Catholicism or any cult tolerated by law as well as the abolition of the centrally-appointed classification board for drama and film, calling instead for a list of publicly available established and transparent criteria , updated in the light of the international situation, to be used during the classification process.

Moreover, it called for the removal of article 7 of the Press Act which lays down a jail term of up to three months for directly or indirectly injuring public morals through the media.

Finally, it called for a removal of the wording of article 13 in the Broadcasting Act which says that 'nothing is included in the programmes which offends 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 10 p.m. onwards.