We have been discussing the erosion of free speech rights across Europe, particularly within the European Union. The crackdowns on free speech in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are often the focus of these columns. However, a recent case shows how smaller countries like Malta have joined this effort with a repressive vigor. Fortunately, the prosecution of Matthew Grech, 33, ended in acquittal this month, but not for a lack of effort by the government. The case should shock the conscience of anyone who values this “indispensable right.”
Grech faced up to five months in prison and a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,400) after he discussed his own history abandoning a homosexual lifestyle to become a born-again Christian. Not only did the government prosecute him for discussing his life, but it also charged journalists Mario Camilleri, 44, and Rita Bonnici, 45, for interviewing him.
It was a full frontal attack on both free speech and the free press. The prosecution was brought under Malta’s “Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act.” The law makes it a crime to perform or advertise practices aimed at changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Grech was the first to be prosecuted under the law after LGBTQ activists filed criminal complaints against him following his interview.
Silvan Agius and Christian Attard filed a report alleging that a related Facebook post and the subsequent interview advertised illegal conversion practices and promoted their “efficiency.”
Cynthia Chircop, a volunteer with the Malta LGBTIQ Rights Movement, filed a report with the Cyber Crime Unit that the video had “triggered emotions” of isolation she experienced as a teenager.
The government alleged that the interview constituted “marketing” for the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, an organization associated with Grech that advocates such transitioning away from homosexual lifestyles.
However, Magistrate Monica Vella ruled that sharing a personal account does not constitute marketing the procedures.
She sought to protect “free exploration and development.” However, the law itself was not struck down. The acquittal was secured on the basis that it was a personal account and not marketing.
The country still criminalizes programs that seek to help those who want to transition away from homosexual practices or lifestyles. In my view, such programs should be considered protected under free speech, religious, and associational rights.
Advocates in the United States have attempted analogous bans by other means. Roughly 23 states have laws banning conversion therapy for minors. The Supreme Court recently heard the case of Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too………..… https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
… Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law (like a defamation statute) abridges a freedom guaranteed by the federal Constitution, that state law would be unconstitutional because the federal prohibition is supreme.
This kind of comment misunderstandings what defamation laws consist of. They are not impositions by the state, like criminal laws. They are a tool for a private individual, if he so chooses, to receive compensation from another private individual who injured him.
To illustrate: I have the right to use my property as I see fit. But if I use it to injure another private person through carelessness or intentional conduct (eg, hitting him with my car), or to steal another person’s property (such as using my car to drive away with his tools), that is a tort, which means he can sue me and I have to compensate him for the cost of the tools or the medical bills he incurred from being hit by my car. Notice, in that scenario the state’s only role was to maintain a court system where private people can sue other private people for damage done to them. Although my right to use my property (my car) as I see fit has not been interfered with by the government, I still have to compensate another private citizen for the harm I did to him.
It would be absurd to argue that that comprises an unconstitutional infringement by the state on my absolute right to use my property as I see fit. Yet, that’s the exact same scenario as defamation. Yes you have the right to speak as you see fit, but if you use your speech to injure another private person in a way that causes economic damages to that person, and the things you said about him or his business were lies, then he, as one private person, can sue you, as another private person, to obtain compensation for the economic harm you did to him.
OId man, this is incorrect. The judiciary is part of the state, and when it enforces tort law that is state action. For instance the courts can’t enforce any contract that requires religious performance, because that would violate the first amendment. So if defamation were not an exception to the freedom of speech, it would be unconstitutional for the courts to enforce defamation laws. The only reason they can is because it is one of the very short list of exceptions to the freedom, and therefore these laws don’t abridge it.
Milhouse – that’s one way to look at it, but I believe a better way is to characterize defamation laws as an example of a distinct principe that, while everyone has freedom (of speech, of property), everyone is also responsible to compensate his neighbor for wrongful injury done to his neighbor through use of that freedom.
Thus, to take the example I posed, if I use my automobile to wrongly injure another person, I must compensate that person for the medical bills he incurs – all of which does not infringe on my freedom to use my property as I see fit, it just means I’m a responsible citizen who pays for the harm I cause. This is the difference between private ordering systems (tort law) and public ordering systems (criminal law).
To illustrate: suppose my kid asks for permission to play with certain things, and I say, “You have ‘freedom of play,’ and thus you have my permission, but if you damage or break one of those things, you have to repair or replace it.”
Now suppose my kid answers, “Well then, I don’t really have ‘freedom of play,’ do I? Your requirement that I repair any damage that I do infringes on that freedom, which is supposed to be absolute.”
That is analogous to people claiming that defamation laws infringe on freedom of speech which is supposed to be absolute.
Professor Turley — I’m the executive producer of FREEDOM, the only American documentary with footage of Matthew Grech, his legal team, and the Malta courthouse. We’ve been filming this story for three years. The film connects Matthew’s case directly to the pending SCOTUS ruling in Chiles v. Salazar. Sizzle reel: https://youtu.be/l6RFwRliakw — Wayne Blakely, Fish Tales Production Company | knowgreaterlove@comcast.net
Dear Mr Blakely: congratulations on completion of your documentary (I just watched the trailer at the link you provided). Mr Grech’s story stands as a counter-example to people who say that kind of therapy is harmful and never works. In a broader sense this story is one aspect of an overarching tension that has been extant for thousands of years between a secular government that recognizes no higher authority than itself (such as ancient Rome) and individuals who walk to the beat of a creator God as an authority existing above the state, and whose precepts form limitations on the state’s legitimate powers.
The transition of homosexuals is believed to occur near viability through environmental corruption in the mother’s womb.
The Turley-is-a-hack squad uses this sleight-of-hand: They switch the focus from the content of the law to the outcome of this particular case.
“Turley’s ‘erosion of rights’ narrative is fundamentally contradicted by the conclusion of the case: *the defendants were acquitted*.” (emphasis added)
The conclusion of this case is irrelevant to JT’s argument: That it is bad law.
Just as the conclusion of another case is irrelevant to the fact that the defendants were arrested and tried under bad law:
In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving. They had been arrested in Virginia for violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage.
Our resident sophists would have you believe that there was no “erosion of rights” under VA’s (racist) law because, look, the Lovings were acquitted.