Introduction:
The virtue of freedom of expression which promotes free speech, freedom of opinion manifested in words, arts and visual images is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Charter(the Chater), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) among other conventions. The member states of the UN, including Ghana, for the purposes of this post are signatories to the above conventions, indicating their acquiescence to respect and protect their citizens’ right to freedom of expression. This post examines free speech considering recent political debates hinging on abuses of the media and individuals’ right to speak openly on bad government policies. Mainly, this post engages section 76(1) of Ghana’ s Electronic Communication Act 2008 (Act 775); section 1 of the Malicious Communication Act, 1988 and section 127 of the communication Act, 2003 of the United Kingdom, in ascertaining whether free speech can be criminalised under international conventions or domestic state constitutions where it threatens public and individual security.
Ghana
As a developing country striving to establish workable and efficient democratic architecture to deliver socioeconomic provisions for its citizens, incessant debates among pandits and political activists take place regularly in the country’s political space, which is useful in holding the government to account as well as promoting a vibrant civil society. In pursuance of this democratic objective, Ghanaians of all backgrounds, media practitioners, particularly social media practitioners as well as politicians, have been exercising their right to freedom of speech; and in the process have made statements which not only provoke public discontent but also endanger public security. Irrespective of the country, there is always tension between freedom of speech and protection of public security. In Ghana for example, sectio76 (1) of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775) was enacted to regulate the balance between free speech and public security in governing the affairs of the country. Specifically, section 76 (1) states that: “it is an offence to knowingly send a communication via electronic means that is false or misleading and likely to endanger life, safety or prejudice the efficiency of life-saving services.” While freedom of expression underpins democratic society as a critical principle in building vibrant civil free society, it is appropriate that Ghana affords its citizens the right to express their opinions on national policies, criticise and comment on activities by public agencies, including ministers of states, to stabilise the democratic architecture of the country. However, freedom of speech is not absolute. Ghanaians must exercise discernment as well as take responsibility in ensuring that their freedom of speech does not incite public anxiety or gender public insecurity. Since freedom of speech is not absolute and governments have a primary responsibility to safeguard national security in balancing free speech with public morality and security. This act of balancing freedom of speech and public security also transpires in the United Kingdom (UK), a leading state at the frontiers of democracy among the international community.
United Kingdom (UK)
The United Kingdom is one of the leading countries among the international community to uphold and promote freedom of speech as a critical principle in consolidating democratic governance, especially in developing countries. However, in the realm of governance and in accordance with the cardinal duty of maintaining public peace and security, two acts of parliament grant power to the UK government to maintain order and peace as the following examples illustrate. Sections 1 of the Malicious Communication Act, 1988 and section 127 of the Communication Act, 2003, variedly frown upon and prohibit misleading communication intending to cause distress and fear among the public. The respective sections of the 1988 and 2003 Acts use words and phrases such as “ misinformation to cause distress, anxiety among the public, threaten people, incite the people to fear, send nude images of people, engage in communication that causes discrimination or racial threats of a particular group of people.” The lesson is that although freedom of speech is respected and protected as a human right in the UK under international law and domestic constitutions, one must also accept the fact that governments have a duty to ensure public safety in balancing free speech obligations with public morality and safety. Thus, criminalising free speeches by individuals intending to cause panic among the public, fear as well as create turmoil to disturb societal stability is perfectly within legal boundaries. The duty by governments and public agencies to protect public security and peace triumphs individual‘s right to free speech that create public fear and disorder. There is, however, occasions where governments and public agencies exploit the public security argument to abuse free speech, which is inimical to growth and sustenance of democracy and free society.
Big Brother Watch, Ghana Journalist Association and Freed Speech
Protecting freedom of speech as a cardinal principle of promoting and sustaining democratic system and good governance have culminated in the establishment of big brother watch and Ghana Journalist Association as vanguards of ensuring a well-functioning society hinged upon freedom of speech. These institutions function as watchdogs in sponsoring open debates, diverse opinions and criticisms of state policies that are injurious to national growth and stability. The Big Brother Watch, an independent British media watch organisation has criticised the UK government for heavy-handedly using illegal communication offences in muzzling freedom of speech. Conversely, the Ghana Journalist Association has also criticised the Ghanaian government of abusing the civil liberties of those expressing their freedom of speech by adopting criminal prosecutions initiated by unwarranted police arrests. Both private bodies serve as bulwark in holding their governments to account; however, it is essential that they educate the public and media practitioners of respecting the laws governing freedom of speech.
Final Remarks
Freedom of speech is a human right that promotes efficient and responsible governance. Citizens and media practitioners have constitutional and civil liberty duties to participate in the affairs of nation-building by offering opinions on national polices, advice to state agencies as well as constructive criticisms of governmental polices to steer them towards sane administration of their countries. Governments also have a duty to respect, protect and promote freedom of expression without adopting heavy-handed tactics to undermine free speech rights of their peoples. However, freedom of speech is not absolute right; thus, governments have the duty to criminalise those who abuse this right to misinform the public, incite violence, create panic among the public or communicate racial hatred.
No Comments