Revision eases threat posed by cybercrime law

The original cybercrime bill, which the House of Assembly passed in March following much criticism from here and abroad, was clearly a serious threat to press freedom, and it probably violated the right to free expression enshrined in the territory’s 2007 Constitution.

Fortunately, Governor Boyd McCleary never assented to the bill, and it re-appeared on the HOA’s agenda last month.

Before passing the revised version, legislators explained that they had decided to add the public-interest clause after concerns were expressed by Mr. McCleary and others.

They made the right decision.

As we stated in February, we support the general aim of the law: As legislators have argued, it will help protect the territory’s security and the delicate financial services sector in the digital age. Moreover, many other countries and territories have passed similar legislation in recent years.

But we took issue with a section of the VI bill that appears to be anomalous: Section 13 penalises the publication of information unlawfully obtained from a “protected computer” — a broadly defined category that includes national security, international relations, financial services businesses, public transportation, and communications infrastructure, among other areas — with up to 15 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

We argued in February that this provision could very easily apply to journalists who have done nothing more than proper investigative journalism. We were not alone in our concerns: Our protests before and after the original bill’s passage were echoed by other media outlets and respected press freedom watchdogs here and abroad.

Thankfully, the revised bill adds a clause to Section 13 that exempts from these draconian penalties anyone who publishes information that is in “the public interest of the Virgin Islands.”

Though we would have preferred for Section 13 to be stricken from the law altogether — especially considering that we have yet to find cybercrime legislation with a similar provision in any other jurisdiction — we are pleased with the change. We believe that the exemption clause will help protect journalists as they work to inform this community.

Still, we are disappointed that legislators did not take our advice to hold public meetings about the controversial bill. If they had taken time to request input from media stakeholders and other residents, perhaps they would have been able to make the revisions stronger.

And indeed, there still might be cause for alarm: After reviewing the revised law, the Austria-based International Press Institute welcomed the changes but expressed concerns about the phrasing of the public-interest exemption.

The wording “does not appear to specify if the interest of the public, rather than the government’s, would be the one protected under this specific clause,” wrote Vanessa Garnica, a press freedom adviser with the IPI. “A public-interest defence serves to protect the right of citizens to information about important public questions. It is not clear whether this clause accomplishes that purpose.”

This concern is valid: In the event of prosecution, the courts likely would be charged with defining the phrase “public interest of the Virgin Isalnds,” and an interpretation that defines it as “government interest” would be very different from one that defines it as “citizens’ interest.”

In part for this reason, we urge the director of public prosecutions to issue and publish prosecutors’ guidelines for assessing the public interest in cases involving the media, as the United Kingdom’s DPP did in 2012. At the time, the UK DPP spoke about the importance of allowing the media to pursue complex investigative stories without fear of prosecution.

Moving forward, we trust that lawmakers and other leaders in this territory will redouble efforts to protect the right to free speech, which is indispensible in any democracy.

Sourse: bvibeacon.com

Опубликовать в twitter.com

Comments close