Woman arrested, charged under Cybercrimes Act

[waves]

The national security ministry yesterday reported that a 35-year-old woman has been arrested and charged under the Cybercrimes Act.

The ministry named the woman as Amieka Mullings and said that she was held after she posted photographs on social media claiming that her ex-boyfriend was wanted for rape, assault and murder.

“Swift investigations by the police revealed that the information was false, malicious and tantamount to malicious communication under the cybercrime legislation,” the ministry said in a news release yesterday.

Woman arrested, charged under Cybercrimes Act


The internet allows persons to freely express themselves without fear. When governments, individuals, or an organisation wants to control speech, they clamp down on people’s ability to speak freely both in public, private and online. This happens in dictatorships for example China.


Therefore if someone says something online about someone or an organization that is negative, immediately that is classified or seen as being malicious.


So for example, a person complains to the police and says that a person has made malicious statements online about them. How do the police determine whether the complainer is speaking the truth or not?


What happens if the crime was committed in the past? What happens when persons cannot file a formal complaint presently against individuals, because of continuous danger, and as a result has no choice but to voice what is happening online.


Isn't corruption high in Jamaica as well, where police and others can be paid off to stop a person/persons making credible accusations?


Can the public trust the police to investigate thoroughly and honestly especially when implicating prominent people?

Section 9 (1) of the Cybercrimes Act of 2015 states that a person who commits an offence by using a computer wilfully with intent to send to another person any data (whether in the form of a message or otherwise) that is obscene, constitutes a threat, or is menacing in nature; and intends to cause, or is reckless as to whether the sending of the data causes annoyance, inconvenience, distress, or anxiety to that person or any other person, can be fined not exceeding $4 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or both, by a parish judge if the person is a first offender.

From my understanding of the above, a cybercrime crime is said to occur said when a person sends to another person "malicious" messages. Not when someone makes statements online about an individual, not directly to the individual, that the individual does not like. But it is when people send continuous messages to a particular individual that is considered "malicious".


Additionally, the part above that states "or is reckless as to whether the sending of the data causes annoyance, inconvenience, distress, or anxiety to that person or any other person."


So if someone sends information that another considers annoying for whatever reason, that is a crime? Isn't this wide? So if person sends data that another does not like, am I to understand that is a crime?

Chambers says persons found guilty in the Parish Court can be sentenced to a maximum fine of $4 million and or four years in prison at hard labour or a maximum of seven years at hard labour if the conviction is in the High Court.

More cyber crimes arrests coming — police


Hard labour for what is considered to be cybercrime such as "malicious communication", why?


Curtailing a person's ability to speak freely online is a deliberate attempt to prevent persons from speaking freely without fear.


The ones who have most to gain from "malicious communication" being a crime are the guilty. Persons who commit crime have every reason to try and silence an individual by whatever means necessary.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Interesting take you have.

According to the article, the woman arrested posted "...photographs on social media claiming that her ex-boyfriend was wanted for rape, assault and murder."

“Swift investigations by the police revealed that the information was false, malicious and tantamount to malicious communication under the cybercrime legislation...” according to the article quoting the Ministry of Justice.

So maybe this ISN'T a freedom of speech issue? Maybe it's about an actual attack on someone's reputation?

"Ministry of Justice"? Not the FBI or Department of Justice?

Oh. This happened on the Island of Jamaica!

Is it to be blamed on President Trump anyway?