To Tweet Or Not To Tweet: The Fallacy That Is Freedom Of Speech
Picture this: Someone approaches you for and asks for money. You decide not to give him for personal reasons; either you do not have the funds or you do not like his face. In your mind, giving out money should be at your own free will. That is your opinion and you are entitled to […]
Picture this: Someone approaches you for and asks for money. You decide not to give him for personal reasons; either you do not have the funds or you do not like his face. In your mind, giving out money should be at your own free will. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The aggrieved person then goes ahead to slander you to all and sundry: your relatives, friends and colleagues. He even makes subtle dibs at you on social media. Soon everyone sees you and thinks of you as unkind, a miser and a selfish human being. When you confront the person, he says he is entitled to his freedom of speech and expression. What will be your reaction?
That the federal government has banned the use of Twitter in Nigeria is no more news. What remains fascinating to me is the way Nigerians revolted and screamed bloody murder at the news as if not being able to tweet meant that the price of petrol was now N500 per litre. The British pound is now N718 to £1 and the dollar is N504 to $1, why are we not throwing tantrums at that??? I am very active on twitter and absolutely love the app, but what I don’t get is the way we are behaving like the ban of twitter will affect the price of meat in the market. Do you know that meat is now N2,500 per kilo? Kai Jama’a!
Nobody in this digital age can deny the influence of social media in spreading hate crimes. Hell, even when the internet was not a thing, the media played a massive role in the Rwandan genocide. According to history, the news media, especially the radio stations, played a crucial role in the 1994 Rwanda genocide: local media fueled the killings, while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued what was happening. The federal government based its decision on the “persistent use of the platform for activities that are capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence.” Is that what we want to happen in Nigeria? If the Nigerian government decides to turn a blind eye to the bile that Nnamdi Kanu is spewing on twitter and a full blown crisis erupts do you not think the government will not be held accountable?
Governments all over the world have been blocking Twitter access in the past few years. In some cases, governments and other authorities take unilateral action to block Internet access to Twitter or its content. As of 2019, the governments of China, Iran, North Korea, and Turkmenistan have blocked access to Twitter in those countries. Twitter has been blocked in China since March 2009 and remains blocked to this day. The block was imposed after a small group of China’s Muslim ethnic minority used the site to exchange information which resulted in deadly riots in Xinjiang. Many Chinese people however still continue to use Twitter by using VPNs.
In March 2014, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoğan banned Twitter, saying that Twitter did not obey a Turkish court order to remove certain links on their web site. Erdoğan has never been a big fan of the internet, and has referred to Twitter as a ‘menace’ and has said that “the best examples of lies can be found there.” And although Twitter is no longer banned in Turkey, you’d better watch what you say. Tweets criticizing the Turkish government, or sarcastic comments could end up receiving a warning from Twitter letting you know how you have violated the Turkish Constitution which could result in account deletion.
Furthermore, in the United States, President Donald Trump lost his online megaphone after several US social media platforms collectively banned his personal accounts in response to last year’s Capitol Hill chaos. Twitter announced that it had permanently suspended his personal account. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said that the suspension of Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were indefinite. Google has suspended the social networking platform Parler, a popular app among Trump’s supporters and right-wing conservatives. Trump over the past four years has been regarded as “a commander in tweets.” The frequency and number of tweets he posted have far exceeded those of any other leaders in the world. Many of his posts, however, were accused of being provocative, inflammatory and spreading falsehoods.
The social media ban of Trump shows hypocritical US standard on freedom of speech. And what exactly is the freedom of speech anyway?
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
However, this freedom of speech has its limitations. One cannot just wake up one morning and decide Nigeria is a zoo or that women wearing Abaya are promoting prostitution. I have always been an advocate of censorship of religious sermons whether they are given at mosques or churches. Religious and ethnic bigots have long hung under the ‘freedom of speech’ banner to spew hatred and incite violence among people. For example, in some countries, blasphemy is a crime. In Austria, defaming prophet Muhammad (SAW), the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech. In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of prophet Muhammad are protected under free speech law. Do you remember, years ago, when there was a cartoon of the prophet in a Denmark paper and the people in Kano city went crazy? Is it the type of freedom of speech we want?
Should the government wait until we have a full blown crisis before they act? The ‘siddon look’ approach? The Government’s decision to ban twitter may be regarded as a draconian and drastic action, but if it can avert Sowore’s “revolution” and a Kanu’s Biafra, then I will gladly accept this law. My piece of mind cannot be traded for all the tweets in the world.
The truth is there are several limitations to what we call ‘freedom of speech’. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate government interest. Countries have a right to censor tweets, crowes, facebook posts and whatever else they damn well wish if they think that it will lead to a national crisis. If as individuals, we can be hurt by what other people say about us, how then can we justify freedom of speech?
Like Idi Amin said: ‘You have freedom of speech, but freedom after speech…. that I cannot guarantee.’