From a purely legal point of view, the mere fact that a written matter is against a particular religion or against a particular religious belief is not enough to give rise to a charge of vilificationof that religion or religious belief, provided the arguments adduced are a temperate and sincere expression and the decencies of a controversy are observed. But when the limits of rational and dispassionate discussion are not observed, when violent and gross language is used, and indiscriminate abuse is made use of, instead of argument, and sacred objects are treated with offensive levity, then such a charge is well founded. It is true that publicity is an essential element of this crime underthe Criminal Code; but the distribution of books containing such abusive matter constitutes that publicity which is required for the perpetration of this crime. The distributor of such printed matter is equally guilty of this crime as the author therof, for it is incorrect to say that only the author or the originator of the spoken words, or the author of the written words, is guilty of defamation. Therefore, a person who puts into circulation defamatory matter on paper or in print is likewise guilty of defamation, saving the rules of complicity. The relevant provision of the Criminal Codeis of a general nature, as it includes all those who knowingly put into circulation printed matterwhereby the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion is vilified or offended. And the "mens rea" in such acase is sufficiently proven by the mere fact of the circulation in Malta, where the established religion is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion, of books which offend that religion and its ministers, as well as the Supremem Pontiff; for the person who circulates such books must necessarily have wanted the natural consequences of his action. However, as it is a well established rule of law that, whenever by means of the same acts founded in one and the same malicious intent, two or more rights are violated, there is a single offence, and the lesser offence is absorbed in the graver one, thedistributor of such incriminated matter cannot be convicted under the provisions both of the Criminal Code and those of the Press Law, but he must be convicted only under the provisions of the Criminal Code contemplating the graver offence.