That Social Media Bill

No time did the abuse of the freedom
of expression on social medium
platform raise more concern as it did during the process leading to the 2015 general elections. Unverifiable, sometimes outright lies were peddled either to malign political enemies or outrightly heat-up the polity.
In fact, many well-meaning Nigerians complained about the inherent dangers of unchecked wares on the web, with victims, mostly public officials groaning in anguish. The smart countered such frivolities, while, the unsuspecting suffered untold dent on their public image.
Of the most concerned was the abandonment of the time-tested journalistic practice of ensuring objectivity, fairness, balance and  factuality. Infact, so one-sided were some of the so-called online reports which never bothered to confront the ‘accused’ with the facts of a story, hence, resorting to shaving a man’s head in his absence.
Another concern was the issue of petitions against public officials without verifiable facts. Even before the affected officials could respond, such reports adjudged as facts had gained so much currency that attempts to even counter them became futile. At other times, frivolous petitions are circulated in the media which on the long run turn out to be outright falsehood.
It was perhaps to check these excesses of the social media, that the Senate mooted the controversial Frivolous Petitions Prohibition Bill, otherwise called Social Media Bill. It was sponsored by Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah, representing Kebi South District in the Senate. Among other sanctions, the bill recommends prison term and huge fines for those found culpable of peddling frivolous petitions.
Sad as the effects of false reports may be on the innocent, the anti-social media bill, so known, is an over-kill. There are indeed existing legislations to check the abuse of free speech, libel, slander and the peddling of falsehood. An injured citizen can leverage on any of those existing laws to seek redress.
That is why the Senate’s attempt to make a fresh law was considered spurious, vindictive, suspect and unacceptable. Public concern hinged on the fact that such a legislation would gag free speech and restrict the right of the media, guaranteed by Section 39 (1) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended). The attempt also negates the spirit and intent of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Nigeria is a signatory.
Expectedly, Human Rights Groups and indeed professional Mass Media operators including the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) and the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) rejected the move. So did many other Nigerians.
With the kind of public reaction to the planned bill, the respectable thing to do, is for the Senate to consider the matter dead. It is unpopular, unnecessary and indeed vexatious.
Even so, social media patrons and indeed online publishers need to demonstrate a good measure of responsibility. No freedom is total as rights are also limited by the rights of others. That being so, online publishers must provide for their members a code of ethics that would bring honour and credibility to the practice. While social media patrons may hint on subjects without proper verification, it behoves the online publishers to be a little bit more painstaking in authenticating such wares before circulation. Not only would that increase public respect for such online operators, it will also expand followership and patronage.
While The Tide condemns any attempt to gag free speech, we insist that the right of expression must not be seen as an excuse to malign others for pecuniary benefits that are injurious to them. For every right has its own limitations which when crossed could amount to abuse and encroachment on the rights of others.