Late last month, the government presented a bill in Parliament which aims to “provide for the enhanced protection of artistic expression and, in particular, to provide for the avoidance of the misuse of the criminal justice system for the suppression of such form of expression”.

The development came after the police took action against comedians following complaints that were filed by a pastor, River of Love’s Gordon Manche, who felt offended by comments that were made in his regard and the way that he was described by these actors.

While, at the outset, the government did well to intervene, on the other hand in this day and age it is sad to see that the authorities felt compelled to take these steps.

Perhaps it would have been better to make it clear that the police should not be wasting their time and resources on complaints for which there are other avenues people who are offended can take. People who feel aggrieved can already resort to the civil courts to seek redress – if they are entitled to one. The police already have a lot of things on their plate, and they should be concentrating on more serious situations.

One thing that has arisen in all this hullaballoo is whether the amendments to the law which were presented last week have created more loopholes. For one thing, does it only protect “artists”, or does it cover others who, for example, pass such comments on the social media? And are “artists” protected 24/7, or only when they are on stage? And why should “only” artists be protected? Are they the only ones entitled to use satire?

Are cartoonists, for example, protected by the amendments of the law as well? And do the changes also cover the printed and online media? Is it only the “satirical” sites that are given protection, or is the traditional media, which reports hard news but has used satire and will continue to use satire, also under the umbrella of the amendments?

Arguments can be made that there are other laws that offer protection to freedom of expression, a sacrosanct right which should be defended at all times. So, then, would it not have been better and simpler to, rather than amend the law as the government is proposing, the police would be put in a position to decide which cases are worth pursuing and which others are not? Would it not be better and simpler for the police to be able to refuse certain complaints and direct anyone who feels aggrieved by something that is said/written about them to the civil courts?

The government wanted to send a message that, in the words of Home Minister Byron Camilleri, action should be taken “when (the liberty of artists) is being threatened”.

Well and good. But, at the same time, the “importance” that has been given to the incident that led to the proposed legal changes has potentially been more damaging to both experienced and young artists, who might now feel too intimidated to take risks with their satire.