KUALA LUMPUR (Aug 20): Civil society organisations welcome a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal that ruled “offensive” online remarks made to “annoy” cannot be a crime.
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) urged the repeal of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 while Article 19, a British international human rights organisation, called for the entire piece of legislation to be reviewed following the court decision on Tuesday.
“For too long, these vague and ambiguous provisions have been used to meet political expediency and uphold archaic values that are antithetical to international human rights standards,” the CIJ said in a statement and reiterated its longstanding call for the repeal of Section 233.
Section 233, which criminalises the use of network facilities or network services by a person to transmit communication that is deemed to be offensive and could cause annoyance to another, has long been criticised for enabling censorship and stifling freedom of expression.
Amendments passed last year strengthened the law by including "confusing" and "incomplete" in the definition of falsehood that widens the scope of the law, drawing strong opposition even from government lawmakers.
Over the years, authorities have used Section 233 to investigate journalists, artist Fahmi Reza, filmmakers of Mentega Terbang, former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan and activist lawyer Siti Kasim.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal declared the terms of Section 233 as unconstitutional, as they violate the protection for freedom of speech under the Federal Constitution.
“This presents a valuable opportunity for the government and the authorities to enhance their practices by adhering to the court’s decision, repealing amended Section 233, and reviewing the overall amendments” of the Communications and Multimedia Act, said Article 19.
The government should establish a framework that promotes and protects freedom of speech and expression, rather than relying on legislation like the Communications and Multimedia Act, which is being used “arbitrarily to suppress these rights”, Article 19 added.