The idea of hate speech often is a philosophical conundrum. It is so chiefly because one man’s hate is another’s love. When a government takes it upon itself to legislate upon and punish hate speech, it throws itself into the epicentre of an ideological quagmire.
That is what has happened with the so-called hate speech law. This cannot be pried from the proposal by the Buhari administration as articulated by information minister Lai Mohammed that plans are afoot to regulate the internet, especially with regards to broadcast rights.
There is a presumption of moral superiority in these two; and, put together, the proposals for a regulated internet and hate speech echo the barbarities of ancient regimes that modern day societies are doing much to forget. Nazism, fascism, corporatism, etc, were noted for taking the individual as toys in a grand authoritarian game to muzzle the civic voice.
The concept of the guillotine has also come into the imagination of the hate speech legislation brought forward by lawmaker Sabi Abdullahi. So, we add to the list of revolutionary infamy the turbulence of the French Revolution.
Read Also: Senator gets threats over Hate Speech Bill
We cannot forget that not long ago in this country we were subjects in a long parade of military rulers who did not take kindly to individual liberty. We remember the damages of Decree Four and the primitive oppressions of Decree Two, and how the nation yearned for a democratic fresh air.
So, for us to undergo a paradox where democrats are now rejoicing in the intimidating civil societies cannot be accepted.
We know that with the growth of the internet, a rash of individuals have taken advantage of virtual anonymity to peddle false stories, misinterpret facts, swap pictures, air videos that create worries among the innocent. This has led to the popularisation of the term fake news. The United States President, Donald J. Trump, played a big role in this use, and he used it to demonise the organised and professional media and turned it into a launching pad to advance fake news.
That is the danger we face, even if we know that fake news abounds in the social media. As some analysts have noted, there are enough laws to address false news or rumours, just as we have laws against slander and libel.
What can be addressed in this matter is the implementation of the law. This means the internet can be made accountable and responsible without muzzling it. In order words, we can abide by existing laws by allowing every social media outlet to be traceable so that when they publish anything that offends, the offended party can prosecute, just as we do on libel laws.
Newspapers have suffered immensely from online theft in which online news outlets filch news materials that cost resources and time to the established media. They ought to face the law when sued in the court of law.
It does not call for hate speech laws. That law, especially the one that calls for death penalty, is awful and unbecoming of a legislature in the 21st century. If we are to follow the law, which has barefacedly passed second reading, it means the law is open-ended and anyone from the street brawler to the drunken brothel owner to the senator can accuse anyone of hate speech.
There is a deep naivety about this bill as it is capable of setting not streets or homes ablaze, it can set a whole city or nation on fire.
Since we have what is possibly hate speech under the criminal code, it follows that this bill is brazenly political and it cannot serve democracy any good. It does not stifle speech, it imperils civic safety.
‘There is a deep naivety about this bill as it is capable of setting not streets or homes ablaze, it can set a whole city or nation on fire. Since we have what is possibly hate speech under the criminal code, it follows that this bill is brazenly political and it cannot serve democracy any good’
Leave a Reply