“Issues of freedom of speech online are not solely "rights
issues" or "Internet issues"; they are located somewhere in the
middle and will need to be addressed by all stakeholders.”
The Internet Society, 2014
The internet has brought with it
a plethora of new possibilities. From online shopping to crowd funding for
projects, it has been transformational to the lives of ordinary people around
the world.
In the last five years or so the ability
to interact with friends and even strangers has become a major feature of this
technological innovation. With the advent of Web 2.0 tools more commonly known
as social media, people from every corner of the earth have been able to
connect with each other sharing ideas and information. In so doing they are
able to go beyond the limitations of traditional media.
Previously radio call-in
programmes provided the most significant avenue for ordinary people to express their
opinions of social, political and economic issues. However there are
limitations as a radio station can easily face a law suit for potentially defamatory
remarks made by callers.
The internet has not totally
displaced the radio call-in programmes or even the newspaper. However it provides
citizens with greater freedom to express themselves in comparison to traditional
media. In so doing it has become an important tool for raising awareness and
amplifying the voice of the common man. However this free speech has become an
increasingly contentious issue.
In recent times many debates have
been raised at all levels over issues of privacy, security and free speech on
the internet. Freedom of speech particularly in the face of repressive political
regimes has emerged as one of the most significant issues. A 2011 report by the United Nations Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) highlighted social media platforms as being invaluable
in countries which lack independent media. These platforms provide individuals
with a significant opportunity to share critical views, to network and research
important information to advance their cause.
The UNHRC further goes on to cite
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These documents outline the right of
individuals to hold opinions without political interference and to freedom of
expression. However the UNHRC states that these rights come with certain
conditions. It cautions that freedom of speech should be exercised with respect
for the reputation of others and should not pose a threat to national security
or public order.
Herein lies a very ambiguous issue.
Any citizen can claim his right to freedom of speech. On the other hand a state
can arbitrarily create or interpret legislation which claims that a citizen has
compromised public order, national security or the reputation of others. In the
majority of cases ‘others’ really mean the privileged few who hold public
office and who have the power and financial backing to zealously protect their
reputation.
The Arab Spring was a clear
example of ordinary people using the internet to circumvent state owned and
private media. In so doing they mobilised grassroots support and protested
against oppressive conditions in their countries. Of course several individuals
were routinely targeted for expressing their views and attempts were even made
to disrupt the internet in some countries. The Caribbean has come a long way
from such extremes with respect to our system of governance, however the voice
of the citizen is still limited with most electronic media entities being state
controlled.
Recently in Trinidad, well known comedian
Rachel Price used her Facebook page to criticise the attire of the head of
state’s wife. President Carmona’s wife was attending a side event at the United
Nations in which she wore a midriff outfit. Price staying true to character, made
light of the first lady’s fashion sense. This drew the ire of President Carmona
who responded by issuing a cease and desist order preventing Price from making
any future public remarks concerning his wife.
As expected the President’s
reaction created a stir in the twin island republic which is never devoid of
political intrigue. It also led to the question of whether the state official
had abused his power in curtailing free speech. This was taken to heart by many
Caribbean people as for years ordinary citizens have been verbally abused by
the political class on platforms and using the veil of parliamentary privilege.
The internet and the advent of
Web 2.0 tools has now placed some of the power back in the citizens’ hands.
However with states’ ability to make and interpret laws, the increased resources
to conduct mass surveillance, monitoring and identifying activists and
criminalising legitimate expression it is difficult to see how freedom of expression
online will be maintained.
Citizens must be cognisant of
their responsibility not to engage in character assassination and other
malicious conduct online. Where they
fall short of this appropriate legal action should be taken. However a government
which truly respects the right of its people to free speech will work hard to
find a balance and involve its people in policy formulation of this nature.
Outdated ambiguous legislation will
not cut it in the 21st century. A caring and fair government will
also set the example by establishing and enforcing a code of conduct which protects
citizens from the arbitrary and menacing verbal abuse by some of its members. Failure
to do such creates a double standard which privileges the unfettered speech of
the powerful and punishes those who dare to speak out.
No comments:
Post a Comment