“I believe that as a State, we need to draw the line between freedom of speech and recklessness. And I’m not referring to matters of criticism,” declares Attorney General George Savvides, responding to previous statements where he supported the enactment of a bill criminalising commendable behaviours online and in the media.
He argued that “some statements I have made about an issue which, in my opinion, is both straightforward and in line with the desires of the majority of people, have been misunderstood and perhaps deliberately so.” He asserts that there is complete respect, at least from his personal perspective, for the issue of freedom of speech and expression.
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legislative regulation needs to be enacted because there is a gap that posting on the Internet is not covered by the outdated legislation of the Penal Code.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.”
The statements of the Attorney General of the Republic were made on the sidelines of the session of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice, and Public Order, where, under the self-referral procedure, the issue of security and salary upgrade of public prosecutors was discussed.
