I don’t know how they intend to monitor the social media, maybe they have acquired new equipment. I think they also said they would be monitoring very important personalities. I don’t know how they intend to do that but I believe that in a democracy, if anyone breaks the law, there are appropriate provisions of the law to deal with such issues.
There are appropriate laws to prosecute someone found guilty of sedition. I don’t know the section of our constitution that provides for the punishment of hate speech, inasmuch as one would not encourage speeches that tend to divide the country. I also don’t know under what section of the law a person can be prosecuted for hate speech. But for sedition, the law is there. If anybody flouts any part of that law, there is a provision for prosecution. For me, the only way hate speech can be curbed is for the government to do the right thing.
The government should not take action or implement policies that tend to divide us. That is the only way. If you create room for people to feel divided, then you give purveyors of hate speech the opportunity to thrive. If the government is creating jobs and equal opportunities for people, there will not be an atmosphere for hate speech to thrive.
Mrs. Opeoluwa Bankole (Sociology lecturer, Olabisi Onabanjo University Consult, Ogun State):
I believe that hate speech is harmful to the society and the government’s effort to curb hate speech in the social media is not, in itself, bad. But it must not be targeted at perceived political enemies. If it is, then it will not achieve any good thing.Security agencies must not have any ulterior motive while pursuing this objective.
In a way, monitoring hate speech in the social media will help to control a given community which in turn will preserve the society. We should understand that left without control, hate speech in the social media can degenerate into crisis. There is a way an individual or groups of individuals can promote negative thoughts and such thoughts will negatively affect every segment of the society.
The government cannot be said to be completely wrong in trying to control the harmful aspects of the use of social media.
If it is about posts in the social media, I don’t think it is a breach of privacy.
Mr. Sambo Muritala (Head of Chambers, Sambo Muritala & Co. Activist Chambers):
Unlike other systems of government, the survival and growth of democracy depends on how free the people are to criticise an incumbent administration. No wonder, democracy in one country is never similar to another. Nigeria has several laws guarding against unverified comments. Nigeria has laws against cybercrimes; we also have laws against libel, slander and sedition. All that the government needs to do is to institute action against whosoever violates the provisions of these laws. It is cowardice for the government to descend so low as to promulgate another law to monitor the social media or empower law enforcement agents to monitor activities in the social media. When the majority has its way, those in the minority must not be denied the right to have their say. Section 39 of 1999 Nigeria constitution, as amended, is to the effect that the freedom of expression should not be denied.
On this note, I will refer to the case of The Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly vs. Danna, unreported, Appeal No: CA/J/207/2013 decided on 3/12/2014. Tur, J.C.A., held emphatically on page 60-61 as follows: “If derogatory remarks or comments are not permissible or tolerated in the Bauchi State House of Assembly, that, in itself, is a violation of the freedom of expression, to hold opinion, to receive and impact ideas, etc, under section 39 (1) of the constitution. What the appellant did also constituted an unwarranted attack on freedom to disseminate information, idea and opinions. The Speaker and members of the Bauchi State House of Assembly ought not to have slammed indefinite suspension on the respondent in this circumstance where the constituency had an interest to protect. In a democracy, conscientious objectors must be tolerated. Their right must not be trampled upon. The majority may not always be right. For example, in courts, dissenting judgments at times lay the foundation for amendment to the constitution, status or rules by the legislature. For democracy to be nurtured in Nigeria, the opposition must be heard.”
Bodmas Kemepadei (Blogger/activist):
I sincerely support the move by relevant security agencies to monitor social media posts.As a matter of urgency, they should tackle the propagation of hate speech. We have witnessed how religion, ethnicity and regionalism among others have caused serious division in the nation today.
My reason is borne out of the fact that so many individuals are deliberately involved in the act of propagating messages aimed at stirring up conflict in the country. They do this deliberately to stir hatred towards a particular set of persons.
The Social media in Nigeria has given a lot of uneducated minds a licence to be hurtful. With the increasing use of hate speech the world over and dissemination of false information from unknown sources, there is the need for caution. The way and manner people disseminate false information to one another – most especially as it touches on people’s belief system – it tells us that Nigeria is now sitting on a keg of gunpowder. If not managed, we may have to say goodbye to morality, law and orderliness.
There is therefore a need for the government to monitor such publications; it is not an infringement of our rights, but it is necessary if we must move ahead as a people, else we may one day wake up and realise that our society has become a jungle of monkeys.
Source: Punch
