‘Fake News’ offence not an attempt to control freedom of expression – Gov’t

Macau (MNA) – The Office of the Secretary for Security has issued a statement opposing some of the views expressed by the New Macau Association (NMA) over the ‘Rumour Offence’ included in a proposed new Civil Protection Law, but showing openness to review the contentious article.

Last week, NMA held a press conference where political activist Jason Chao criticised the justifications provided by authorities to include legislation that could lead to prison sentences for publishing or disseminating rumours and fake information during situations of public emergency, such as typhoons.

At the time Chao criticised that during the law public consultation between June and August of 2018, authorities indicated regulations restricting false information were already in force in Indian, Switzerland and France, considering it “misleading”.

The activist noted that a provision regulating on publishing offensive, false or threatening information in India had been ruled unconstitutional in 2015 by the Supreme Court of the court, concluding that it “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech”.

Meanwhile, regulations in Switzerland and France were said to have been misrepresented in the consultation.

In its response today, the Office of the Secretary for Security stated that in the consultation it had presented examples of criminal legislation concerning the crime of false information mainland China, South Korea, India, France and Switzerland to explain to the public that there are already precedents in the international community for recourse to criminal law to sanction acts related to rumors.

‘However, security officials have never stated that they would copy exactly those examples of legislation from abroad, in order to configure the crime against public safety, order and peace during public incidents,’ the Office stated.

Concerning the Indian regulations, the Office stated that although the provision was considered unconstitutional, when the public consultation took place Indian authorities had not yet updated the legal information published on their website, so they continued to be taken as reference by the security authorities.

The Office stated that it understood the concerns of the public over the new offence defined in article 25 of the Civil Protection Bill, but opposed any view that it had misrepresented French and Swiss legislation or that the proposed offence intended to restrict freedom of expression.

Last week, legislators from the 1st Standing Committee of Legislative Assembly (AL) currently evaluating the bill asked the government to clarify article 25 while suggesting authorities to amend the current Penal Code instead of adding such provision.

At the same time, the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM) also sent a letter to the President of the 1st Standing Committee requesting if a meeting could be held to express their concerns over Article 25.

In its response today, the Office stated that ‘security authorities reiterate that fake news crimes under the current criminal legislation are regulated by different types and degrees of damage’.

‘It is therefore not possible to apply these incriminating norms to conduct leading to rumors during the period of major catastrophe, which seems to be an objective necessity, since the Macau SAR Government has an ineluctable responsibility to fill the gap and avoid the dissemination of rumors during major disaster, which aggravates individual panic and consequent harm to society,’ the Office added.

Nevertheless, the Office said it has always been open to any opinions and suggestions that could help to improve the draft law and that it will continue to listen to the feedback from the various sectors society and government legislators, to see how to improve the bill.