CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE HATE SPEECH BILL AND ITS EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE HATE SPEECH BILL AND ITS EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH
1.1 Background of the Study
Since the dawn of time, man has intuitively exhibited a desire to express himself in matters pertaining to his overall well-being and the advancement of the society in which he lives.
Although, as societies have grown, this innermost yearning has more frequently been met with oppressive tendencies in the form of harsh laws, exile, physical torture, and other repressive measures enacted by the ruling class, man has remained unafraid in his pursuit of free expression of ideas (Layefa and Johnson, 2016).
According to Oloyede (2008), despite the unparalleled value and unique indispensability of free speech and press freedom to the proper and progressive functioning of society, many repressive and fascist governments, as well as numerous nefarious groups and institutions, and diabolic individuals, continue to harass, malign, victimise, terrorise, imprison, and threaten these noble institutions.
Indeed, despite the ominous dangling of the swords of repression, torture, and death, among other things, man persists in his pursuit of free speech and a free press, much to the chagrin of opponents of free speech.
Democracy is often recognised as the world’s most popular form of governance. It is commonly considered as a people-centered government. According to Obasanjo and Mabgunje (1992), as cited in Ogah and Ogeyni (2014), democracy is a governance philosophy that prioritises citizens’ basic freedoms or fundamental human rights, the rule of law, the right to property, the free flow of information, and the right to choose between alternative political positions.
Simply said, democracy is a political system in which the people have more power than a small clique or oligarchy, and the rule of law, majority rule, and constitutionalism are basic guiding principles of governance. In this context, Ramaswamy (2007) stated that democracy means the rule of the people rather than the rule of a single individual or group.
He went on to say that, unlike in a monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy, where there is a distinction between rulers and ruled, the people are both rulers and rulers. In 1999, Nigeria joined the League of Democratic Nations.
Freedom is one of the most important characteristics of a genuine democracy. The ability to express oneself freely without fear of physical or psychological damage demonstrates one’s freedom (whether granted by the government or not).
The boundaries of free expression have gotten increasingly flexible. Globalisation, which has physically eliminated all borders and is mostly driven by the internet, can be blamed for this.
The internet has revolutionised free speech and expression, which was formerly limited to television, radio, and print media. Today, we have social media, which allows people or organisations to sit in the comfort of their own homes or offices and freely express themselves to millions of other users who are not bound by the physically defined borders and restrictions of countries or regions (Joel, 2013).
However, in a constitutional democracy, freedom of expression and the press entails the right to say whatever one wishes, subject to the consequences of the law, which must be fair and properly justiciable.
Thus, liberty, or freedom of expression and the press, refers to two separate concepts. These include putting no prior limits on publication and press freedom, which includes no constraints on what to publish and what not to post.
There should be no pre-publication censorship. Everyone has the right to share their feelings, facts, and information to the public. To deny this liberty is to smother the press and free expression (Joel, 2013).
Nigerians were recently informed that the Senate was debating a highly contentious legislation. Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, supports the proposed law, known as the “Hate Speech Bill.”
According to its Senate sponsor, the Hate Speech Bill seeks to “eradicate” hate speech and prevent harassment based on ethnicity, religion, or race, among other goals.
It provides heavy penalties for offences like ethnic hatred. It states that anyone who uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provides, distributes, or directs the performance of any written or visual material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or who uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words, commits an offence (Punch, 2018).
If that isn’t enough to intimidate you, these offences carry a five-year prison sentence, a fine of at least N10 million, or both. The death penalty, which is enforced when any form of hate speech causes the death of another person, is the cherry on top (Punch, 2018).
Hate speeches are statements, typed documents, advertisements, musicals, or any other kind of literature intended to denigrate an individual, a group (religious, social, political, or business), gender, or race.
In certain countries, hate speech is punishable by laws such as sedition, incitement to violence, and verbal abuse. Ezeibe (2015) defines hate speech as “any word, gesture, conduct, text, or display that may provoke individuals to take violent or discriminatory action.” In essence, such insults diminish the dignity of others.
Hate speech is a broad term that encompasses insults thrown at persons in positions of power or minority groups, as well as insulting remarks addressed at individuals who are very visible in society.
Hate speech can be managed at critical times, such as during election campaigns, when allegations of inciting hate speech are traded between political opponents or used by those in power to crush dissent and criticism (Ezeibe, 2015).
The spread of hate speech and foul language is a current trend in media malpractice in the country. Indeed, the media has fallen into the trap of publishing hate speech by directly reproducing interviews, press statements, advertisements, and even alleged web sources.
In Nigeria, popular media channels such as AIT, Channels, Thisday, Vanguard, and The Nation, among others, were inundated with campaigns by various political parties exhibiting gross violations of the right to free expression, including hate speech and other forms of abusive language (Olowojolu 2016).
While traditional media continues to tackle hate speech, the rise of new media has broadened the battleground in the hate speech debate. Because of its decentralised, anonymous, and participatory structure, new media provides an ideal platform for modifying and disseminating disparaging statements and language.
The prevalence of harsh speech and poor language on social media in Nigeria, particularly on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn, which touches on political and national issues as well as social contact, is concerning.
This is because it fuels societal unrest among tribes, political classes, faiths, and even friends (Alakali, Faga, and Mbursa, 2017). While some argue that classifying hate speech as a criminal act violates citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression, others argue that hate speech is not free speech and that criminalising it would have no impact on citizens’ right to free expression.
Instead, criminalising hate speech encourages citizens to accept responsibility for their freely expressed beliefs by holding them accountable (Alakali, Faga, and Mbursa, 2017).
1.2 Statement of Problem
Sections 22 and 39 of the Nigerian Constitution ensure the freedom of the general public, including the press and civil society groups, to receive and impart ideas and information by speech, print, and other media.
Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution states that everyone has the right to free expression, which includes the ability to hold opinions as well as receive and impart ideas and information without restriction.
However, with the recent passage of the Hate Speech Bill, the debate over what constitutes hate speech, particularly on social media, has reached a national level. Only a few voices have sounded the alarm, and important sectors of society — the mass media, civil society, pressure groups, universities, writers, and creative/performing artists — that may bear the brunt of the terrible law have been strangely and dangerously silent.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The following are the key aims of this study:
To determine the public view of hate speech bill.
To examine if the hate speech bill would have a negative effect on the freedom of speech in Nigeria.
To determine the prevalence of hate speech in Nigeria.
1.4 Research question.
This research question informs this investigation.
What is the public’s opinion on the hate speech bill?
Is Nigeria’s hate speech bill harmful to free speech?
What is the incidence of hate speech in Nigeria?
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic