Home | Feature | FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NOT FREEDOM TO INCITE VIOLENCE

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NOT FREEDOM TO INCITE VIOLENCE

05/04/2019 00:38:00 By -Mail&Guardian

Font size:

THE unspeakable tragedy that took place in Christchurch, New Zealand, has raised urgent new questions about the balance between freedom of expression and public safety.

A lone, radicalized gunman not only went on a shooting spree which killed 50 people and injured scores more, but also this rampage was live-streamed for an agonizing 17 minutes on the world’s largest social media platform without interruption. Now, both private companies and state regulators are grappling with how best to respond to the public outrage. It is clear that we must do a better job of identifying and containing harmful content and toxic inflammatory rhetoric, both in social media and traditional news.

In Africa, we unfortunately have a long history of experience in this area. The most well known case undoubtedly is that of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) in Rwanda, whose founding editors were determined by a tribunal to have committed war crimes in 1993-1994 related to their incitement of genocide of up to one million Tutsis and other victims.
Unfortunately, at the time, there was no competent or willing regulatory body to halt RTLM’s daily broadcasts calling on militias to ‘sharpen their machetes’ and inciting a deepening spiral of violence.

In Zambia, we have thankfully not suffered any recent comparable tragedies, however, like many nations, the challenge of balancing freedom of expression while also protecting the public’s peace and security is paramount.

This question has been debated in response to the decision by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) to issue a 30-day suspension of the broadcasting license of Prime TV, a private news broadcaster. The suspension attracted some misinformed international attention. The US Embassy called for the suspension to be reversed, while Amnesty International described the intervention as ‘a ploy to muzzle independent voices’. The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement commenting that the IBA ‘should not suspend news organisations simply because they report critically and disagree’. But was that really the case? Was Prime TV suspended only for its expressed opinions, or was it suspended for airing inflammatory content that failed to meet basic journalistic standards?

It seems that none of these organisations had the opportunity to review the segments that were broadcast by Prime TV which had resulted in their suspension. If they had understood the context of what this broadcaster was doing at the time, it would be very clearly understood that intervention by regulators was in the interest of public safety, and not a suppression of free speech.

Officially, the suspension decision by the IBA - which acts independently of the administration and ruling party - cited numerous violations Prime TV had committed under Section 29 (1) (k) of the IBA Amendment Act (2010). According to the regulator’s statement on the issue; “The Board found that the station has exhibited unprofessional elements in its broadcasting through unbalanced coverage, opinionated news, material likely to incite violence and use of derogatory language.” In retrospect, this temporary penalty seems exceedingly light given the nature of what was broadcast concerning by-elections in Shesheke district on February 12, 2019. At this time, Prime TV had stitched together and selectively edited numerous clips of violent exchanges between cadres of ruling and opposition parties, allegedly using some imagery that was collected earlier and far away from the district.

The accompanying editorialised newscast portrayed one side as a blameless victim, and the other as a remorseless aggressor deserving of revenge strikes. The clashes were amplified, dramatised, and manipulated by Prime TV’s editors to foment public unrest and tribal hatred, with a clear ‘dog whistle’ to invite further political violence.

This suspension did not occur over an issue of freedom of expression. Even Prime TV’s Gerald Shawa appeared to acknowledge that the station erred in its Sesheke coverage - his appeal to the authorities requested that the suspension be downgraded to a warning. There is no reason for any sovereign government to wait for the next Christchurch or Rwanda. We must strive to achieve a balance between open and responsible press freedom while at the same time doing everything necessary to protect the peace and security of the people from the scourge of hate and violence.