Popular TikToker 119 was arrested on Tuesday and hit with a charge of malicious communication under the Cybercrimes Act in relation to two social media posts regarding a female of a St Catherine address.

The social media personality, whose real name is Milton Wray, was held by the Spanish Town Criminal Investigative Branch (CIB). He was granted station bail in the sum of $400,000 and will answer to the charge in the St Catherine Parish court on May 12.

“I begged them to tell me what words in my post amounted to ‘malicious communication’. The officer replied ‘that’s why there is a judicial system that will be revealed in court’,” he explained when contacted by the press.

The Tiktoker, who is a former journalist, is relishing the challenge to his freedom of speech and expression rights which he believes are “core human rights”.

“I am seeking a stay on the matter pending a challenge in the constitutional court. I believe this is a new low for the police who are seeking to infringe on the rights of regular Jamaicans by misinterpreting the law in order to muzzle them,” Wray said.

The case revolves around two social media posts that 119 allegedly made regarding a young lady who later filed a complaint to the Spanish Town CIB.

Wray believes the newly instituted Cybercrimes Act is ‘patently unconstitutional’, infringing dangerously on the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

“All citizens of Jamaica should know that if you speak the truth, the police can come for you and arrest and charge you. The provisions of this new law are clearly not justifiable in a free and democratic society,” he stressed.

Wray finds it “frightening” that a law in Jamaica allows the police to arrest and criminally charge a citizen for relating his or her experiences.

He emphasised that the police have a duty to properly investigate a matter and ensure that any charges proffered are substantial, not trite or trivial, and are cogent enough to present to a court of law.

“This whole thing is ridiculous. The arresting officer just called me in and charged me. I did nothing wrong. I didn’t threaten, any post I allegedly made was not obscene, and it wasn’t done with the intention to harass any person or cause harm to any person or property. The state is just trying to suppress my constitutional rights to freedom of speech,” 119 railed.

In recent times, several persons have been hit with ‘malicious communication’ charges, mostly in relation to the dissemination of obscene photos or videos of women without their consent.

Section 9 of the Act outlines penalties for using computer devices to send threatening, harassing, or defamatory material, or material that incites harm. Offenses can result in fines and/or imprisonment, with a maximum penalty of 20 years.

Wray says he is not intimidated by the charge which he believes was calculated to suppress his social media advocacy.

According to the Cybercrimes Act, there are three ingredients that must be proved by the material presented to an investigator before a prosecution can be initiated under this section.

They are: one, that a person used a computer to send or publish material by a person to a social media site; two, that the data sent is obscene or constitutes a threat or is menacing in nature, intending to threaten with harm or danger; and three, that the material which is either obscene or a threat or menacing in nature, or all three, or a combination of the three, was sent with the intention to harass any person or cause harm or the apprehension of harm, to any person or property.