Subscribe via E-Mail

Get all of our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning! Just tell us your name and where to send it using the form below.

PS – We hate spam too. We don’t sell or share our list with anyone, and we never send commercial email.




luxe
Friday, January 29th, 2016  |  USD: Buy 531.29 / Sell 543.92
20 years

How a Facebook post of a bong-smoking nun landed this expat business owner in hot water in Costa Rica

Email this page

By Tim Williams

August 3rd, 2015 (ICR News) Facebook posts have landed Costa Rican business owners in legal trouble in the past, like when former president Laura Chinchilla pursued criminal defamation charges against prominent businessman and hotelier Alberto Rodriguez Baldi over a Facebook post he made in 2013.

 

But one American expat business owner was taken by surprise late last week when Costa Rica’s Interior Ministry (Ministerio de Gobernación y Policia) sent the man a written order to remove postings made to his business’s Facebook page deemed “offensive” by the ministry’s Bureau of Advertising Control (Oficina de Control de Propaganda).

 

Especially alarming to the ministry appeared to be a post containing a photo of a Catholic nun smoking from a bong, as well as posts that included scantily clad women, according to a copy of the legal order provided to ICR News by John Clark, proprietor of TomeMae.com, an online bazaar with a retail location in Santa Rosa de Heredia that sells everything from small kitchen appliances to children’s toys at liquidation prices.

Authorities have demanded the immediate removal of this Facebook post. The text reads: "Who says smoking marijuana is a sin?"

Authorities have demanded the immediate removal of this Facebook post. The text reads: “Who says smoking marijuana is a sin?”

 

In the order, the Bureau of Advertising Control, which it says is “legally responsible to ensure the respect for human dignity, the protection of family, and the proper use of images of women in advertising,” said that the Facebook post promotes drug use and “offends religious beliefs.”

 

The Bureau also takes objection to other posts on the Tome Mae Facebook page that feature bikini-clad women in seductive poses, which it says portrays women as sexual “objects” and “disregards and violates their status as persons entitled to recognition and respect for their dignity,” adding that under the law, “the use of women [in advertising] must be previously evaluated and approved by this office.”

 

“What happened to free speech?  This is a police state we are living in,” Clark, who has resided in Costa Rica for six years, told ICR News, expressing his surprise and disbelief after receiving the order.

 

Clark said that he has not yet complied with the order by removing the posts, and that his attorney plans to file an appeal on Monday.  Still, Clark concedes, he might be forced to comply if the appeal is not successful, lest ministry officials raid or shut down his place of business.

 

“We’re not just going to roll over and do what they want, but of course I can’t keep fighting it.  I am not in a country with a just legal system, I can’t depend on the legal system to be just and I am a foreigner.  I am going to stop posting the religious posts but I am not going to stop posting the girls,” Clark told ICR News.

 

Regarding the posts of women, Clark said there is no difference between his business’s Facebook posts and images that routinely grace the pages of some of the country’s most-read tabloid newspapers, such as La Teja, which is published by the country’s largest publishing group, Grupo La Nacion.

 

“What is the difference between the images we post on Facebook and those that appear in La Teja? Nothing,” Clark said. “When a gringo tries to run a business here they just get utter hell,” Clark added, recalling a recent incident when authorities seized all of his store’s chewing gum, claiming that a special license was required.

 

“I came here to live a more peaceful life,” Clark said.

 

Click here to review the full legal order (Spanish, in PDF)

costa rica news

ATTENTION: If you are seeing this message,


Advertisement


Get our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning.

Click here to subscribe to our email list. We hate spam too and never send commercial email.

Like us on Facebook and receive our news in your timeline

  • http://alligatorsnroadkill.blogspot.com/ John Dungan

    Welcome to Ticolandia. I would advise you not to mess with any government agency, but what do I care? I got outta that place.

    • stevieboy

      Costa Rica is a wonderful place to live.. as long as you can keep your american assumptions and arrogance in check and just enjoy your life

      mitigate government involvement and g eat some coconuts

  • disqus_r8w0IwvvLw

    A man I met whom I thought would be more open minded, help the poor, and improve CR including the roads…his name is Guillermo Solis.
    What happened instead as it did when the man for the people, Mr. Obama got in, IS A MORE RAPID ACCELERATION OF THE NWO AGENDA. Whodaknown? I left CR in a flash as the take over blows through the country following closely behind their colonizer.
    Note to Costa Rican government: there is not one thing in this world that does not offend someone somewhere. What ya gonna do about that???

  • jdennisg

    Costa Rica does not have the same laws as the U. S. Free speech is not a right here….you cannot defame others or you can get in trouble. I’ve heard of deportations over defamation of character here. And if you are not a citizen, you are only a guest in this country. Behave like a guest.

    • stevieboy

      there only exists the illusion of FREE speech in the U.S

  • jdennisg

    And, if you came here for a more peaceful life, behave as though you mean it and don’t stir the pot. Peace is good; be peaceful and live according to the laws of this country. Don’t be just one more ugly American….here are far too many of them, here and other places….

  • Ken Morris

    This is an interesting set of issues.

    As an officially Catholic country (it’s in the constitution) I would imagine that, yes, it’s legal to ban photos and such that the Church finds offensive.

    As an officially pluralistic country that allows for religious liberty, it might even be legal to ban photos that depict any faith in a way it finds disrespectful.

    Banning gratuitous photos of near-naked women would seem a stretch in a country where these photos (as well as the models in the flesh) are commonplace (I too immediately thought of La Teja), but then again everyone knows that some kinds of photos, like pornographic ones, would be banned. Costa Rica has laws upholding “decency.” Well, what is decent vs. what is indecent is a matter of opinion that changes with the times. If memory serves, feminists in Costa Rica did recently get a bill passed banning precisely the kinds of photos in dispute, and something tells me that these same photos would have been banned as indecent in Costa Rica a century ago. If opinion has shifted and laws have changed in such a way that these kinds of photos are once again banned, I can’t find a reason to object.

    My own opinion, were I the judge, is that the photo of the nun is permissible while the photos of the women aren’t.

    I form this opinion by asking what the point of free speech is in the first place. It is, I think, to allow the widest possible expression of diverse opinions on public issues.

    Although I find the photo of the nun offensive, and am sure others find it more offensive than I do, I believe it makes a point about both drug use and religiosity that contributes to the public discussion about these issues. Moreover, public policies arise from decisions made about these issues, sometimes unwise policies, so every point of view regarding these issues ought to be allowed to be expressed.

    I can’t though find a similar justification for the photos of near-naked women. To the discussion of what public issue do they have any bearing? Indeed, what relationship do they have with the business that posts them? It’s conceivable that some kinds of depictions of near-naked women would contribute to the discussion of some public issues, and I would want these displays protected by free speech, but I can find nothing in the photos John Clark posts of public merit–or therefore protected by free speech.

    Whether or not Mr. Clark is a victim of anti-gringo prejudice I can’t say. I do think one of his strongest legal arguments is that he is doing no worse than many others do and is being selectively singled out for prosecution. Unfortunately, the successful use of this defense may produce exactly the opposite of the ideal outcome, namely allowing Mr. Clark to post the photos of the near-naked women but not of the nun.

    However, legal issues aside, I personally don’t care for Mr. Clark’s attitude, and unfortunately find it too typically gringo. He disrespects the faith of the country, depicts women as sexual playthings (in a country where most gringos his age show up precisely to use the local women as sex toys), and assumes that US interpretations of free speech laws extend, or should extend to Costa Rica, even though most countries of the world don’t share the US’s interpretation of free speech.

    Then Mr. Clark whines that he’s victim of anti-gringo prejudice. Why do I feel that if that prejudice exists in his case it is deserved?

    • Yeims

      And while we’re at it, what about the highly pornographic movies on cable TV. Movies used to be about cops and robbers and things like that; now in that genre they exclusively deal with sadistic, depraved, demented psychopathic torture and killing. I can remember here when crime was only a nuisance and nothing more than light-fingering things. The headlines of today indicate homicides have risen 50% since last year. I see a connection. The persons here responsible for screening this sort of thing in the media and Facebook take offense at a picture of a nun. The original culture here has been totally destroyed over the years, and no one seems to notice.

      • Ken Morris

        While I agree that the standards for acceptable programming on TV have changed over the years, my guess is that the introduction of cable TV is the main explanation for the change.

        The legal theory behind cable TV, I believe, is that since the customers voluntarily subscribe to it, they are entitled watch whatever programs they want to, including those that wouldn’t be permissible on the free public networks. By extension, if they don’t want to watch those programs, they don’t have to subscribe. It’s a bit like allowing a guy to buy a porn magazine with photos that wouldn’t be allowed on public billboard. It’s more of a privacy right than a free speech right.

        However, as it has evolved, cable TV has become darn near an essential component of most households (landlords sometimes automatically include it in the rent), so the original argument that subscribing to it is a private choice begins to break down. If I can risk another analogy, the argument that cable TV programming is protected by privacy rights begins to look a lot like the argument that privately-owned hotels and restaurants have the right to discriminate based upon race. Yeah, as private businesses they do have that right, but the problem is that at some point private businesses become public institutions and lose some of their privacy rights.

        I think cable TV has reached the point of becoming a public institution and as such can no longer thoroughly defend its programming on the basis of privacy rights. More practically, of course, the fierce competition cable has given the networks has forced the networks to copy cable programming as much as they are able, with the result that without too many people noticing, the standards for decency on the networks have changed too.

        I’m not sure how big of a problem TV is, though, since hey, you can just turn it off. Also, just based upon my experience as a father, as a kid my daughter voluntarily watched “This Old House” on public TV over other shows, because she liked to learn how to fix and build things. I have never been convinced that kids or adults are necessarily attracted to unwholesome stuff unless there is another problem going on. As long as they can change the channel or turn the TV off (and my daughter usually voluntarily turned it off since she preferred to play the piano) I can’t become too alarmed.

        Public advertising is though a different issue, since the public can’t change the channel or turn it off. TV falls somewhat into this category, but I think TV is mostly an issue of privacy rights while advertising is more of an issue of free speech, although the two issues can overlap.

    • mthorman

      Actually, the photo of a nun using a bong does not necessarily indicate that she is using marijuana. People use bongs to smoke a great number of “therapeutic” plants for a number of different medical conditions. And even if the nun is smoking marijuana, she may be trying to treat pain, nausea, or glaucoma. I have been recently diagnosed with glaucoma and can barely wait until Costa Rica legalizes medical marijuana so I can prevent blindness.

      But on the subject of using sexy women in advertising, I think Mr. Clark may only be following a long-established practice. As a woman, I very much dislike the use of sex to sell everything from pills to pocket watches. Why is it used thus? Because it seems to work. If it is to be banned, it should be banned by law that applies to all advertising except that for sex.

      Mr. Clark my be right that his business is being singled out by Tico competitors. I don’t know about his specific case, but I do know about several cases in which this actually happened on a more local level. It was so brazen that I thought it must be illegal, but the police themselves were determined to protect the Tico businesses against a Gringo upstart. They told me so!

      I’m an “anciana” and could go to the front of a long line at the hospital. But I don’t, even though standing for a long time is extremely painful for me. I don’t because I’m a Gringa and the long-suffering Ticos already in line would be particularly resentful if I used that privilege. Gringos are seen here as people of privilege. Because I’m a Gringa, people assume I have “mucha plata”. If a Gringo is living a very humble life-style and his Tico neighbors know he lives less well than they do, they believe he has money stashed away somewhere. Really. The “belief” that Gringos all have money is so strong that Ticos generally disregard the reality in favor of the belief.

      So … never try to start a business in competition with established Tico businesses. Mr. Clark is not paranoid. Sex should not be used in advertising except for selling sex itself. And marijuana should be legalized and taxed. That would put an end to all the costs associated with policing marijuana and, at the same time, provide an income source for the government (I suggest the CAJA).

      But … all of that would require a competent bureaucracy which Costa Rica does not have. Sigh.

      • Ken Morris

        Interesting points.

        Instead of responding to all of them, let me just pick up on the “rich gringo” stereotype.

        While it’s true that the stereotype exists, I have found that it is not as pronounced or persistant as many gringos assume it is. Actually, perhaps a quarter of the Ticos have incomes as high or higher than most gringo expats, and most Ticos are well aware that there are “poor gringos” too. Also, it’s just a stereotype, and easily dislodged within the first 5 seconds of interaction. It’s been many years for example since anyone has even tried to charge me the “gringo price,” and on the infrequent occasions when I do seem to be targeted for my alleged money, it is always by a Tico who doesn’t even know me. (There are occasions when they see only my gringo name and assume I can be targeted.) I’m pretty sure that this is because I don’t conform to the stereotype of the “rich gringo.”

        More importantly, and a pet peeve of mine, is that gringos bring this stereotype on themselves. Most gringos openly maintain that they are an asset to the country because of the money they spend here. Well, if that’s a person’s self-conception, Ticos are going to pick up on it and try to get some of that money for themselves. Most gringos also voluntarily leave tips at restaurants and bars, overpay maids, and among a certain large set of gringos overpay prostitutes too. While gringos usually maintain that they are helping the Ticos by these gestures of generosity, in fact the generosity is often interpreted by Ticos as stupidity and arrogance. (And let’s face it, when gringos voluntarily overpay, their motive is sometimes more to appear a big shot than it is to be generous, even though they rationalize that they are motivated by generosity.) Anyway, gringos perceived to be stupid and arrogant are inviting targets for cons, even as overpaying alone fuels the stereotype of the rich gringo.

        My view is that we’d all be better off if more gringos just followed the advice of “when in Rome do as the Romans.”

Popular Content