Censorship, only way to deal with hate?
Hate speech lies on the faultlines of free speech, but while dissenting voices are legitimate, purveyors of hate are not.
They need to be tackled differently, says GEETA SESHU
Some of the comments can make you blanch, the vitriol thick with cruel abuse. Sexism in rampant and four letter words are routine. Dig a little deeper instead of merely browsing sites, scroll down to check on the comments for any news item, and you’ll find that the Internet is not a pretty place for the faint-hearted.
Advocates of freedom of expression have long understood that hate speech lies on the faultlines of free speech. Dissenting voices are legitimate but purveyors of hate are not. But both need to be addressed seriously. Both need to be tackled differently.
Thus far, the internet has promised the greatest amount of freedom for all manner of content -– it is interactive, overturning old hierarchies of information dissemination, provides amazing access to information and creates invaluable space and voice for dissent.
On the flipside are the banal and pedestrian trivia, the worrying invasions of privacy, the alienation or cyber-bullying of vulnerable youth, paedophilia and now, the recent instances of morphed pictures that triggered a violent demonstration of Muslims in Mumbai and mobile messages that spread fear and panic amongst people of the North-East, resulting in an exodus from Pune and Bangalore.
The Indian government respondedby blocking websites and web pages, Twitter accounts and limiting SMSs that mobile users can send in a day. Users, who cursed the very imposition of the limit, soon found new ways around the ceiling. That’s the trouble with this kind of low-level censorship. You get used to it.
The uproar the latest censorship of online media evoked across the country as well as internationally, has died down somewhat. But is censorship the only way to deal with hate?
Blocking hate…online
Both Kapil Sibal and Sachin Pilot (respectively union minister and minister of state for Commmunications and Information Technology) have asserted that they are not in favour of censorship but if content is ‘inflammatory’ and against the laws of the land they will be taken down.
No international law actually defines hate speech. Art 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Human Rights stipulates that ‘States shall prohibit by law any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’.
In his recommendations on the Internet and freedom of expression, the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, discussed restrictions on freedom of expression for child pornography, incitement to genocide, advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and incitement to terrorism.
But even these restrictions, his report said, need to follow what is popularly called the three-part test: that it must be provided by a clear and unambiguous law; that it must be in the pursuance of a legitimate aim and that it must be necessary or proportionate to the aim pursued.
Forty-one countries, including India, endorsed the recommendations. But can we confidently say that the Indian government’s blocking of online hate sites adhered to these principles?
Was the Indian government transparent? No. It took a leak from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) to tell us more than 250 sites, web pages and Twitter accounts were blocked.
Was the law to block online content unambiguous? No. Aside from a total lack of definitions in the law, nowhere did the government spell out which content was ‘inflammatory’, thereby tarring bloggers who actually tried to dispel the rumours, journalists critical of the government and mischievous websites with the same brush!
Was the action proportionate to the aim? No. This was clearly illustrated by the futility of the SMS limit, the indiscriminate blocking of sites/pages and the fact that action, which was seen to be taken, focused on online censorship, not speedy investigation or prosecution of offenders.
If censorship can’t work, what will…?
Social networking media like Facebook possess mechanisms where users can report abuse, a controversial attempt that can end up making censors of us all. While this may identify cyber bullies or hate peddlers and offer a route to deal with online harassment, it has no review mechanism at present.
The Indian government leaned on Facebook, Google and Twitter to block sites, web pages and accounts. But only legal or punitive solutions to censor ‘unacceptable’ content will not work. Hate content, sexism, cyber-bullying, stalking or harassment induce fear and this cannot be addressed merely by blocking sites or rendering content temporarily invisible.
In a conflict situation like riots or disturbances, governments need to be much more proactive in countering propaganda and rumour. Helplines and the setting up of safe shelters and transport options are essential, accompanied by mass mobile messaging to inform the public of these facilities. What we did get, instead, was a hurried adoption of social media guidelines for government agencies.
Media literacy needed
But there is a longer, harder, route to tackle online hate sites, cyber bullying or harassment. Media awareness and education for internet or mobile users who are actively targeted by such content is crucial. The aware user will possess skills to identify and deal with hate propaganda, separate fact from fiction and cross-check the information or posts on social networking sites with sources or sites that are more authentic or trustworthy.
But this process requires the widest possible participation of educational institutions, news media – print, broadcast or online, responsible civil society groups and official government agencies that eschew standard knee-jerk censorship responses in favour of emphatic campaigns against propaganda and rumour mongering.
In the West, the media literacy movement has managed to make media education and awareness part of school curriculum. Dealing with online media, as the media literacy movement has realized, requires different strategies. One of the foremost media literacy groups, the Canada-based Mediasmarts (formerly Media Awareness Network), has well-developed modules and classroom exercises to help students and other citizens identify hate speech and propaganda (especially in the context of racism and anti-Semitism) in online media.
Other groups like the US-based Media Education Foundation also work extensively with older students and produce video material that looks at hate in different contexts – misogyny, racism, violence, guns and masculinity, etc. UK’s Ofcom, which began conducting research on adult media literacy since 2005, tracks changes in attitudes towards copyright, privacy and security. Another study, by Guardian newspaper in collaboration with the London School of Economics, analysed 2.6 million riot-related tweets in the 2011 London riots to find out how people tweeted rumours that were also quickly dispelled by other tweets!
In India, few educational institutions, including journalism schools, examine the media in any critical manner as part of curriculum, save for notable exceptions like those run by the Krishnamurti Foundation. But while reaching out to students is important, how does a media literacy programme reach India’s mobile media users (689 million active subscribers of 929 million)?
In Bangalore and Pune,in the wake of the propaganda that triggered the exodus of North-Easterners, civil society groups and political parties quickly organized meetings, bringing Muslim groups and members of the North East together. Police used messaging services and helpline numbers while social groups provided assistance at railway stations. However, not all of this was productive and there was criticism that some groups that purportedly came forward to help contributed to the panic! And mobile companies could have done more than worry about a drop in revenue with the SMS limit.
Nevertheless the efforts, or lack of it, only bring home the importance of developing more critical and responsible tools to receive and transmit messages on an ongoing basis. Not by shutting off the message but by creating, and transmitting, other messages that instill trust and faith. Not by treating media users as susceptible and ill-informed people who are worthy only of censorship, but by making them responsible and aware.
Subscribe To The Newsletter