The free speech debate as a freedom from consequence

We listen, be ready to hear

Attending a function yesterday that in a presentation relayed distribution and diversity, it was interesting to note how though there seemed to be a broad spectrum, the predominance of particular identity groups in the age and race category suggested there was still a lot of work to be done even if our cohort represented the most diverse in the sector.

At the end of the presentation, I seized on a passing point to ask questions and suggest an enhancement of service for the people we encounter to ensure they are catered for. There was a perspective that demand should drive production whereas I thought broad consideration should drive availability. A balance of sorts could be achieved.

Moving to lunch, this occasioned the opportunity to have a chat at our table of 4, two men, both retired and born within 20 miles of the venue, a lady and academic from the Far East, and I, straddling the Global South and where were we.

The freedom to be nasty?

One of the men intoned, “We do not have free speech as we used to the UK anymore?” To which the lady suggested, we have luxuries in terms of expression and effective action beyond protest, that they from her part of the world have not enjoyed for almost a decade.

The other man then said, “If I were to say something like…”, the like of which was suffused with stereotype, prejudice, or disparagement, he might be prosecuted. It left me wondering why free speech is usually defined in terms of needing to say something that does not engender neighbourliness, good relationships, and the better of people around you.

The point I made was that free speech does exist and the ones who make the most noise about the absence of free expression are those with the loudest voices and the largest platforms to project their views and suffer no consequences for whatever they say.

The fear of consequences

The issue is not so much the absence of free speech but one of people annoyed or frustrated that their nastiness will now not be ignored, and they might really be held responsible and accountable for whatever they have said.

It is unlikely that if anyone has given thought and expression to the good things of our humanity and fellow human beings to acknowledge and embrace the beauty in others, they would have incurred any opprobrium, I would think there would be much praise and support for their viewpoints from fair-minded people. Then again, all opinions can draw the support of the similar-minded.

The quest for a suitable soapbox

However, I can agree that the traditional Speakers’ Corner of which the one in Hyde Park is the most popular and probably the last surviving, has disappeared in many other marketplaces, street corners, and public squares around the country. [Wikipedia: Speakers’ Corner]

The open-air soapbox and public oratory open the speaker to a general agreement or heckling whilst allowing you to present your viewpoint without any fear of retribution. Yet, any freedom comes with responsibility and the opportunity for free expression should not become a licence of irresponsible public address towards anti-social behaviour or negative persuasion. Social media now offers a global platform for expression. The Speakers' Corner is now your social media status.

Then, the men felt comfortable expressing those views because they found some sort of safety borne of the conversations we were already having and they probably thought their opinions would hold sway without a counterpoint, I guess they did not expect us to be as articulate with ideas that would suggest they should have reflected a bit more on their audience before trying to give their myopia a broader range of view.

It might well be old dogs cannot be taught new tricks, their worldview is set in RAAC*, none of which will stand the test of time.

* Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), is in the news, it was a type of concrete used in many government buildings, especially schools from the 1950s to the 1990s, durable for about 30 years and presently presents the risk of failing and endangerment to life. [Local Government Association: Information on RAAC]

Decade Blogs - Blossom Nnodim - The Guardians of the Future

Decade Blogs

Blossom Nnodim, many encounters online of engagement and disagreement come to mind between us, but we have from time to time agreed, or agreed to disagree whilst avoiding a degeneration to the disagreeable.

She is in her own right a Social Media entrepreneur, a compere and one of the conveners of the AdoptATweep brand.

When she offered to write for my #YourBlogOnMyBlog Series commemorating my Decade of Blogging, I was both surprised and elated, I could not refuse the offer and I am honoured to host her opinion on an element of social media expression.

Blog - To Celebrate My Decade of Blogging

In the piece below, Blossom opines about the responsibility that comes with the freedom of expression, when we have the opportunity to face the principals of our online ire. Since we do not have a First Amendment guaranteeing expression as the United States Constitution does, it can sometimes be difficult to appreciate especially in our culture, when valid ideas are conveyed badly. We must err on the side of reason and reasonableness.

As regards the event, she refers to in her write up, the saying goes; He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon. It just so happens that we mostly eat with our hands. The host however is not the devil.

Here goes -

My name is Blossom, and I recently started a project aimed at connecting Social Media and Social Good at www.blcompere.com and usually tweet via @blcompere.

Social Media, the Guardians and the future of Nigeria

It is not uncommon to see folks argue about the merits and demerits of Social Media, its assumed impact on young people and in the long run, its overrated impact on social change.

Recently, a group of young Nigerians who are mostly vocal about their dissatisfaction for the state of governance and lack of accountability by public officials in Nigeria were hosted to a dinner at Aso Rock. The simple minded will immediately posit that eating at the King’s table is a tacit endorsement of the king’s ways and as such, a true patriot should refuse such an entree. An open-minded individual will however posit that such an opportunity should be largely interactive. This will in return afford the young person an opportunity to voice out the seemingly glaring dissatisfaction while standing on existing protocols.

Alas, as is the case with most events like this, interaction and engagement are at most, non-existent. What we see is a linear process in which the speaker speaks and the listener listens.

The highpoint of the event was when the President who was represented by the Vice President of the Country took the podium to highlight some thoughts that are fundamentally correct and timely.

 “The limitless reach afforded by the internet environment requires discipline, circumspection, decorum and the judicious dispensation of time.” ~ Namadi Sambo (Vice President of Nigeria)

“That which is designed to enhance should not be permitted to impair; whether your preferred device is laptop, tablet or smartphone, let us all apply those keypads wisely and productively.” ~ Namadi Sambo (Vice President of Nigeria)

The above thoughts cannot be coincidental lines in the script. The audience at the event were young people who are hugely driven by technology. It will not be unusual to find that a reasonable bulk of these young ones may or may not easily define the thin line between “Freedom of expression” and “hate speech” when a random search is conducted on their Social Media Legacies.

The Aviation Minister, Stella Oduah who has been on the QWERTY lips of young Nigerians in the past month was present and actively participating at the same event. Would it be out of place for the major youth headliners of the event to have stood on existing protocols to subtly push the online messages home?

A moment came that ultimately displayed the attitude of most young persons in moment of offline engagement. Mr. Chude Jideonwo got an opportunity as a speaker to speak; apparently grateful for the magnanimous entrée offered by the Federal Government made a statement that was not in harmony with his usual online candour;

“Mr. President, you are perhaps the first President in my lifetime to take young people seriously.”~ Chude Jideonwo

[Text of the speech by Chude Jideonwo courtesy of YNaija.com]

The above statement is not unique to the speaker; it is the usual attitude of most young Nigerians, including Blossom. How can online utterances of frustration by young Nigerians, which are generally classified as rants, find an expression in such events? How can we claim as a demographic that we are the guardians and custodians of an uncertain future when we do not embrace opportunities that can shape that future?

It is not rocket science to point out that the societal insistence on acquiescence may have a role to play. I will however differ by stating the obvious. A large number of our young people do not follow the acquiescence rule online and as such should shed the assumed attitude offline.

In conclusion, I will recommend that even as we outwardly nod our heads to the earlier caution given by the Vice President, it is equally important that same discipline, circumspection, decorum and the judicious dispensation of time should be embraced to voice out our dissatisfaction, offline. What we really need is a future, not an entree about the future.

I conclude by congratulating every one of the 100 Guardians of the future who truly deserved the honour.

God bless Nigeria!

London: A Preacher on the Tube?

Smart changes

Having learnt that the changeover from the Hammersmith & City line to the District line to the East was literally an interminable walk at Barking Station, I was minded to get off just before Barking.

I decided to change at West Ham and took a seat, to wait for the District line tube to arrive. I have also noticed that some people take up the priority seating places for the slightly incapable though on most occasions those seats have been vacated for me since I do use a cane.

At other times, I have demanded the use of priority seating if it is obvious that the occupier does not require it.

The voice of a preacher man

So, getting on the tube at West Ham, I had hardly settled into my seat when a man decided to introduce himself. I was quite taken aback, I have not seen people preach on public transport for decades and that was in Nigeria. I can even remember sharing a garbled message of the gospel with my accent so out of place in Nigeria, people probably listened – my accent being a cross between English and Nigerian influences is indicative of the fact that it is not being put on for effect.

The message started with questions about life and death, the possibilities of paradise and judgement amongst other trains of thought that seemed to begin to lack any form of coherence – I live-tweeted the event surmising that someone might soon tell the preacher man to be quiet in a not so polite manner.

The audience was captive, many were returning from church and could well identify as Nigerian – not that it mattered to me between his saying aks for ask and with an accent that was as unnaturally regional to any known speaking it was just a matter of time.

Put on my shiny black shoes

Then a man took on the preacher, and excoriated him for wearing shiny black shoes, looking really dapper and having a designer bag slung over his shoulder – in the assailant’s view, this rather ostentatious look was distracting especially to women whom he believed would be enticed by the looks of the preacher thereby distracting them from the gospel.

In what looked like a sign of displeasure, turning into an argument ready to erupt into a shouting match, the preacher kept his calm as he tried to reason with the assailant – the message of the gospel had been derailed as other Christians on that coach began to voice their displeasure that the assailant who was now determined to have his say and allow no further preaching to continue until he was ready to disembark

In some ways, the assailant was probably Christian but whatever legalistic teaching he might have been subjected to would undoubtedly have been of the see not, read not, say not, touch not, wear not, appear not, walk not, seat not variety that it would have made Levitical laws look utterly tame.

Eventually, the assailant disembarked where the preacher would also have wanted to get off but the preacher stayed on the tube to wrap up his message with some encouraging words before stepping off at the next stop.

Your freedom versus my freedom

In one of those Twitter exchanges, someone advocated the freedom of worship and religion which is all fine and well in the places of assembly where such adherents decide to congregate, the London Underground is, however, a public space and it is illegal to preach in such an environment without a licence because it disturbs the peace and the people’s right to be free of such influence is infringed upon by another exercising their supposed rights.

Interestingly, I observed on my way to church this morning that the tube driver was a Sikh. We are to find ways to co-exist with practitioners of other religions and no matter how compelling the Great Commission we must be more intelligent and innovative about how we share the good news without daring the law to put us in uncomfortable situations.

Much of what can be tolerated in many religious countries will not necessarily find the law so sympathetic if any of the passengers had decided to call the London Transport Police to report a breach of the peace.

Nigeria: Social Media is a Symptom of our Government Practices

The dangers we face

In Nigeria, there is every hope that the government of the people is by the people and definitely for the people, that is the supposedly the age-old definition of democracy.

However, the model of democracy we run has serious problems with an executive that appears to be a law unto itself, a legislature that makes it exorbitantly unaffordable with the many conflicts of interest that hamper its oversight functions and a judiciary in crisis constantly being intimidated by powerful and rich defendants that troop senior lawyers to court by the truck load.

We live in times where bad history seems to be ready to repeat itself like in 1966 and 1983 when the barracks let loose political juntas whose altruistic aims of righting the wrongs with Nigeria just seemed to compound things the more.

Our hope and desire

In our heart of hearts, I believe it is the wish of every Nigerian that the government and that is any government in power even if it consists of reprehensible aliens, unsightly to the eyes but diligent, competent and visionary is making the country work for the benefit of all.

The realities we face are such that they cannot be ignored, we cannot continue to have people in leadership who seem to be in office but not in power, whose purpose appears ill-defined and who we deem to simply enjoy the trappings of office and power without consideration to the people, aggrandising with impunity and without consequence.

The responsibilities we all have

It has created a backlash, for the promises are yet unfulfilled and the lauded achievements are no more than ideas that have yet to be well thought through.

The government of Nigeria that consists of over 160 million people with serious infrastructure and reputational issues cannot be where people who rule fail to be leading by bringing effective and lasting change to the people not just through economic growth but in development that fosters equality of opportunity and creates good jobs for the largely restless youth.

This amazingly resourceful youth that makes up more than half the population of the country are in the main disappointed, disillusioned and no doubt angry without much within the structure of our democracy to voice their feelings when the ruling party could not even find any in its ranks to fill in the youth leader’s post that it unashamedly fell into the lap of a 60-year old man.

The youth voicing out

The youth have not been silent, they are active and galvanised, working with technology where the old fogeys have no control, they are the lifeblood of social media on blogs, on Facebook and on Twitter they are calling out the leaders, irreverently questioning them, mounting challenges on the gerontocracies and entrenched power structures that want to be oblivious of the real Nigerian problems.

Beyond that, their anger is also expressed in abuse, yes, abuse, excoriating abuse, sometimes vile to the extreme, none of which is without cause but the situation can only be remedied if the government comes out of its siege mentality and begins to respond, react, reform, readjust and realign itself to the core aspirations of Nigerians.

Protecting the freedom of expression

If anything, for all the weak institutions that give a lie to our democracy that looks more and more each day like a kakistocracy we have the freedom of expression and much of that expression with cause is not to the liking of many especially those in government where the President has said it is a pastime, the Senate President has questioned unfettered access to social media forums and an aide has recognised the torrent of abuse that has gone the President’s way.

Nigerians have always had these discussions in their homes, at bars, amongst friends and all sorts of places, we are by nature political animals, that the discussion is now on social media forums should not be a surprise to anyone.

A democracy thrives on the freedom of expression and views, where there are any who take offence, they have the courts to seek redress, what we do not want is to have legislation that criminalises expression and foists lèse majesté laws on the people such that they cannot fearlessly and vigorously hold their elected representatives accountable.

The constitutional laws that give the most senior members of our government immunity from prosecution during their tenures have been egregiously abused as governors mostly manifest as demigod potentates, untouchable and literally outside the ambit of the law until they leave office after they have caused untold damage.

The real image of Nigeria

Nigeria’s image abroad has not been fashioned by the happenings on social media, it would be naïve to suggest the CIA World Fact Book, the Failed States Index or the World Bank – Ease of Doing Business report mines Twitter, Facebook or blogs for their indices – these are sadly but the best objective data available that determines the risk profile of the country and the investment potential for prospectors along with the perception embassies will feed back to their home countries.

Social media obviously brings more voices into the debate and that is important, Nigeria is bustling with educated and vibrant talent that want to have a say in how they are governed and even have a louder say when they perceive the government is inimical to the aspirations of the citizenry.

The problem is in the government

The honest truth is the image of Nigeria will change when the government gives us new things to talk about by moderating their excesses and more importantly dealing with the bad and somewhat classless behaviour that has become action and manner of speech of those in power.

If they have forgotten that they are in power to serve rather than be served living large like they are in the courts of Caligula given to wanton debauchery and lasciviousness too vile for expression, no amount of abuse will be too great until they begin to mend their ways.

We must not forsake our liberties and freedoms for the temporary absolution of government from every kind of scrutiny, be it informed or ignorant, else we deserve none of the liberty nor the freedom we have and lastly, the learned should beware that they are not found to give succour to those whose aim is to curtail our freedom of expression in the misguided view that social media is the bane of the problems Nigeria has.

Social media is just the symptom of a problem defined by the way the government has chosen to work and govern.

When the Free Speech brakes fail

The right to self-destruction

Expressing themselves clearly

Just as people do not appreciate, the value of good health until when struck down by illness, so do people maintain an atmosphere of indifference until someone abuses the right to free speech or self-expression.

As it happens, the issue of freedom of speech never arises until someone says or writes something that excites commentary. The proponents then seek the refuge of free speech to no avail.

Two events stand clear in this rush to the free speech refuge but the caretaker refused entry for all the banging and pleading at the gates.

Senator Trent Lott, the former Senate Leader of the US Senate at a birthday speech in celebration of the late Senator Strom Thurmond's 100^th birthday.

Robert Kilroy-Silk, the talk-show host of a programme bearing his name, a former member of the British parliament and occasional newspaper columnist, the news column being the trigger for his misfortune.

Oops, that is offensive

Interest follows observing the similarities between both cases, in that the speech referred to the past and the column was once published eight months before.

Concerning the speech, the celebrant ran on a segregationist presidential ticket in 1948, Mr Lott in his speech apparently reminisced about how American might have been different if the celebrant had won.

Mr Kilroy-Silk had written the piece in the heat of the second Iraqi war, then focus was on events in Iraq, with a commentary by-line questioning the value of Arabs to modern society.

The comments caused great offence and an avalanche of recriminations.

Congenitally predisposed to pre-judge

The common saying that we judge others by their deeds and ourselves by our good intentions always fetches true in situations like this.

Nobody would feel elated when offered a frank assessment of his or her personality, creed, culture, views, identity, appearance or expression, which contains disparaging language that belittles, demeans and possibly offends.

Expression is not always necessary for a frank opinion, even though it might be true and valid. Everyone has a degree of subjective leaning, however, when expressed that becomes a kind of prejudice.

Frank is not necessarily objective; it is a facet of observation by the purveyor of the expression.

Be nice or be silent

Anywhere the free speech advocates rear their heads, the dichotomy of political correctness receives much commentary. For any issue, there is opportunity to project benevolence or malevolence; however, beneficence never attracts much attention except in recognition or award.

Malevolence demonstrated as a characteristic of the exercise of free speech is disingenuous at best and blatantly horrid at worst. It serves no particular purpose than to tug at the fragile seams of society and create division in an uneasy accommodation. It is the lit fuse to a bomb without knowing what would be the extent of the havoc caused.

It is no doubt that silence is never a virtue of the malefactors who are presumably expressing the views of the silent majority affected by the issue addressed. The expression is an incitement, though it may not receive enough momentum to spill into the streets.

Whose free speech?

The affected in the debate about the exercise of free speech usually have no clear forum of advocacy to seek redress. Redress for where free speech is abused is the exclusive preserve of the rich.

The law offers censure for slander, libel, blasphemy or sedition, which are loose synonyms of the abuse of the free speech. Only those who can afford the expense of the legal process can exercise the right to challenge offense.

That group of people who are subjected to the pique of inconsiderate and self-serving pronouncements either grin and bear it, or may have the fortune of a representative organization that seeks censure.

Free speech becomes the property of the broad audience of society, ownership is exercised by the all sides that are affected by the commentary, no matter how strong the retraction, it cannot be wrestled back from the offended.

Speaking up for a demise

In the two cases that feature in this article, none of the advocates of free speech could save the proponents from the consequences of their machinations.

The great lament about the ascendancy of political correctness over freedom of expression serves no beneficial ends for the perpetrators. Instead, it creates a finer focus on the offense and a greater outcry for a lynching.

The offended usually demand incessant apologies, which do not go far enough to ameliorate the feeling of wrong. The thirst and baying for blood only gets sated with the loss of a valuable position.

Mr Lott resigned the leadership of the US Senate and Mr Kilroy-Silk resigned from hosting his own talk show, considering none of what they said or wrote happened at the Senate or on the BBC talk show.

If there is any morale in these episodes, people who express themselves without restraint or an understanding of responsibly enhancing a harmonious society stand to lose the pedestals from which they pronounced their opinions and folly.