Internet has emerged as an ultra democratic medium of expression of late. The arena of free expression no longer belongs to a priviledged few; it is now a level playing field.
And… absolute freedom is never liked or tolerated. Censorship inevitably follows. So I thought it would be interesting to note the three recent incidents of censorship of the internet in three different countries and look at what their constitutions have to say about Freedom of Speech and Expression:
Pakistan recently banned the social networking site Facebook because of an application that allowed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed which they found blasphemous. The site was restored two weeks after it was blocked by a court’s order. The interesting part is that after the incident, an official of the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan told a news agency that about 1,200 URLs continue to be blocked in Pakistan to prevent access to blasphemous and sacrilegious content. To me the startling figure comes across as severe violation and intolerance of people’s right to express themselves. Religious blasphemy is unacceptable but that doesn’t mean curtailing people’s right to choose and access information. And living without Facebook must be horrible!
Under Fundamental Rights 19, Pakistani Constitution says-
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court,[commission of] or incitement to an offence.
Bangladesh was quick to follow suit and ban Facebook. Apart from the offensive depiction of the Prophet, there was apparently another reason for the ban. Some gutsy people uploaded caricatures of the Prime Minister and other political figures which deeply offended the government. Let’s look at what Article 39 of the Bangladeshi Constitution says-
Article 39: Freedom of thought and conscience, and of speech
1. Freedom or thought and conscience is guaranteed. Freedom of thought and conscience, and of speech.
2. Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense-
i. the right of every citizen of freedom of speech and expression; and
ii. freedom of the press, are guaranteed.
I’m wondering how they categorized the caricatures of the politicians! Did it pose a threat to the nation’s security or did it get restricted on the pretext of vague terms like decency and morality? Who gets to decide what is decent and moral is another question mark.
In a country of 900, 000 Facebook users, technology unquestioningly runs deep and wide. “What do you do without facebook,” I asked a friend. “Oh, We are smart you know. Everyone uses proxy servers,"came the answer. Despite the ban, Facebook was accessible through mobiles and servers like hidemyass.com. Most people think such bans are just power exercises to give out ‘Don’t mess with me’ messages.
I find the case in Bangladesh particularly interesting because of another reason. This is what some text on the Board of Investment, PMs office’s site reads:
“The democratic government has declared the “Vision 2021” in the election manifesto which targets establishment of a resourceful and modern country by 2021 through effective use of information and communication technology-a "Digital Bangladesh".
The philosophy of “Digital Bangladesh” comprises ensuring people’s democracy and rights, transparency, accountability, establishing justice and ensuring delivery of government services in each door through maximum use of technology-with the ultimate goal to improve the daily lifestyle of general people.”
So here they are, trying to establish a ‘Digital Bangladesh that ensures people’s democracy and rights’!
Another case in point is a censorship that is nongovernmental. James Joyce’s Ulysses is a book which in spite of being a classic is infamous for its explicitly sexual content. Recently while the book was being adapted into a comic book to sell as an iPad app, Apple insisted that any depiction of nudity be removed entirely. It didn’t even agree to a compromise offered by the artist of covering the offending body parts with a fig leaf or pixellation!
Interestingly, this is the second attempt of Apple at censorship. A few weeks back, Apple App store had banned an App called NewToons which featured the works of Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mark Fiore. These cartoons apparently poked fun at some public figures which didn’t go down too well with Apple.
It’s amazing that this kind of a censorship comes from a tech giant in the United States of America, a country which is most concerned about guaranteeing its citizens the right to Free Expression. The First Amendment in the US Constitution says- The Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press…..
This by far though is the most open ended statement made to assure citizens their rights and courts in the US have been struggling to interpret and reinterpret it.
It’s remarkable how the governments in several countries have now turned their attention towards new media. Democracy and censorship don’t go with each other and yet they have been inseparable since time immemorial. Time will tell whether new media will survive the ugly blow of censorship or give in. More power to Democracy and new media!
No comments:
Post a Comment