CMA amendments: Minister explains where satire crosses the line

The proposed amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 would mean parodies and satirical content would not be criminalised, said Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil.

He told an interview with Astro Awani last night this is unless they cross the line to become “grossly offensive”, as the amendments would provide clear guidelines for enforcement and judicial interpretation.

“For example, if you recall the Charlie Hebdo incident in France, where the prophet was caricatured - that is an example of being grossly offensive,” he said.

Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical weekly news magazine that is known for its cartoons attacking various political and religious leaders, the most controversial of which are those targeting Prophet Muhammad.

The magazine has been targeted in multiple militant attacks believed to be motivated by discontent towards its depictions of the prophet, including a shooting in 2015 that killed 12 people in its Paris office.

The minister said the government aims to balance free speech with clear limitations, adding that while offensive speech is not ideal, the focus will be on grossly offensive content.

Under the current iteration of CMA’s Section 233, it is an offence to use network facilities and services to send communication that is deemed “obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person”.

Activists have mocked the law as “Akta Sakit Hati” (Hurt Feelings Act) for being too ambiguous and for being abused to target those with dissenting opinions.

The proposed amendments, which were tabled in the Dewan Rakyat on Dec 2, seek to raise the threshold for an offence under Section 233 from “offensive” to “grossly offensive”.

In the proposed amendment, clarification was given on the term “grossly offensive” content that refers to extremely offensive material, such as obscene or vulgar language, hate speech, or gratuitous depictions of violence.

These explanations explicitly state that content will not be considered “false” under Section 233 if it is a work for satire, parody, or otherwise clearly fictional.

It also explains communications made in good faith are not grossly offensive as long as the communications are factual or consist of “statements and opinions”.

Satire and parody

In the interview with Astro Awani, the minister said Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan has reviewed the proposed amendment and confirmed that satire and parody would not be considered crimes under the law.

“Syahredzan has studied the proposed amendments and agrees that satire and parody will not, per se, be criminal acts moving forward. This is a significant clarification,” he said.

Syahredzan, as a lawyer, represented Fahmi Reza – a graphic artist and activist who has been investigated and hauled to court on numerous occasions under Section 233 of the CMA and other laws.

They were due to his satirical cartoons lampooning various political figures, including a depiction of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak as a clown that ultimately resulted in a conviction under Section 233.

As for the 3R issues of race, religion, and royalty, the minister explained the amended law is not specifically aimed at such issues. Instead, it depends on what is said and whether it is considered grossly offensive.

“We don’t look at whether it falls under 3R, but usually, anything that violates what we recognise as 3R would have (an) element of being gross(ly offensive).

“So, it is not just offensive, but grossly offensive. We are more focused on that,” he said.

CMA amendments 'backdoor' move to bring 'fake news' laws, says LFL

CMA changes may bring more harm to children, groups warn

CMA bill tackles hate speech, scams, unsolicited messages

CMA amendments to be tabled in Parliament on Monday: Fahmi