Kuala Lumpur: The Court of Appeal has scheduled August 19 to announce its decision regarding an appeal filed by activist Heidy Quah Gaik Li. The appeal contests the rejection of her lawsuit, which challenged the legality of certain sections in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 concerning criminalization of offensive online comments.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, a three-judge panel comprising Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah determined the decision date after hearing submissions from both parties. Quah, the founder of Refuge for Refugees, argues that the terms 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 of the Act violate fundamental human rights outlined in the Federal Constitution.
Section 233(1)(a) specifies that it is an offense to make, create, or solicit online comments that are 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with the intent to 'annoy, abuse, threaten or harass' others. In September 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, prompting her appeal.
During the hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin, representing the Malaysian government, argued that expressions involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech, or incitement to violence are not protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He emphasized that free speech should promote truth, respect human dignity, and serve an informative role.
Conversely, Quah's lawyer, Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, contended that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 contradict Articles 10 and 8 of the Federal Constitution, which safeguard equality and freedom of speech. He asserted that these terms do not constitute a 'permissible restriction' under the public order clause in the Constitution.
Quah, 31, faced charges in July 2021 in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' comments on Facebook. In April the following year, the court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, citing defects in the charge under Section 233(1)(a).