PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has reinstated the words “offensive” and “annoy” in Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ruling that the words are not unconstitutional.
A five-judge panel, chaired by Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, ruled that the two words within the Section did not infringe Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.
Federal Court judge Justice P. Nallini, who read the decision, said that the purpose of Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA was to regulate the improper use of network facilities and services, with a view to providing a safe online environment.
"It serves to protect individuals and communities from suffering harm as a result of such improper use. In other words, Section 233(1)(a) targets communications that fall outside the purview of the freedom of speech and expression.
"Therefore, it does not have the effect of infringing that right as guaranteed under Article 10(1)(a)," she said here on Friday (Feb 6).
The judge was delivering the decision in an appeal by the government against the Court of Appeal's decision that struck down a part of Section 233(1)(a) that consisted of the words "offensive" and "annoy", relating to a lawsuit brought by activist Heidy Quah.
Quah filed an originating summons to declare the words in the law provision as null and void after she was charged in court under Section for her Facebook posting.
At the same time, the apex court also held that the prosecution against Quah was "baseless".
"We wish to make it clear at the outset that, with regard to the charge filed against Quah, we are of the view that the prosecution should not have been brought against her.
"This is because the content of her Facebook post falls within the definition of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1)(a). It therefore cannot form the basis of a charge under Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA," Justice Nallini said.
More to come
