Attorney General Clarifies Stance on Freedom of Speech and New Legislation
In a recent clarification, Attorney General George Savvides has addressed concerns surrounding his support for a bill that aims to criminalize certain objectionable behaviors online and in the media. Savvides emphasized that his stance has been misinterpreted and that he holds a deep respect for freedom of speech and expression.
During an exchange with the Cyprus News Agency, Savvides reiterated his belief that there is a need to distinguish between free speech and reckless actions. He stated, “My position in favour of a specific bill… is because I believe that as a State, we should draw the line between freedom of speech and recklessness.” He assured that the bill, which has been in parliamentary limbo since 2020, is narrowly tailored to address only manifestly threatening and other condemnable behaviors.
The Attorney General pointed out that the current Penal Code is outdated and does not cover certain activities on the Internet. He believes the proposed legislation fills this gap without infringing on the rights to critique or address fake news. Savvides highlighted that the bill is designed to target only malicious intent, with protections for good faith defenses.
Addressing concerns about the bill’s impact on Mass Media, Savvides expressed confidence in the professionalism of journalists and does not foresee the legislation affecting their work. He clarified, “It is so explicitly worded that it does not cover either the expression of opinion or criticism.”
Responding to suggestions that the bill might be a gagging measure, Savvides differentiated between criticism and the type of behaviors the bill seeks to regulate. He assured that any criminal prosecution under this law would require the consent of the Attorney General, preventing private individuals from pursuing private prosecutions over personal grievances.
The Attorney General’s comments were made on the sidelines of a Parliamentary Committee session focused on issues related to public prosecutors. His clarifications aim to quell fears that the proposed legislation would impinge upon freedom of speech while ensuring that online behaviors are regulated responsibly.
