By Lucky Okoedion
Recently, since the arguably dictatorial / undemocratic suspension of former US president Donald Trump by Facebook and Twitter from their social media platforms simply for expressing outrage over what he claims to be a fraudulent election in the United States of America, an old sentiment that is opposed to 100% free speech – a sentiment which borders on the argument that it is unsafe for all forms of debates to be allowed in the society – has been resurrected from our human primitive past and brought back into modern civilization.
This time around, unlike in our primitive past, it is not traditional media or print houses that are being used by certain vested interests to decide which narrative, world view or perspective is permitted in the public domain. It is social media that is being used. The argument is the same old excuse that has been given right since the dark ages when politicians and religious leaders made laws that considered certain beliefs like “the flat earth” untouchable and anyone who dares advance an alternative narrative is dangerous and guilty of blasphemy.
All who have ever supported media censorship in the primitive past and now tend to assume that most human beings are too stupid to be able to make the right choice of what to believe if they are allowed access to all the arguments in issues that are considered “sensitive to national security”. Everyone is expected to relinquish their right to choose what to believe to those who controll the media – we should all trust Facebook and twitter’s judgement, trust the discretion of their political sponsors and allow them to decide what is safe for us to be aware of.
The same old argument upon which scientists were imprisoned, executed and their books burned in the dark ages – “the people may rebel against the interest of certain politicians and support opposition politicians if they are allowed to hear or read the other side of the story and if all issues are permitted to be subjects of public debates because the people are too stupid to be able to arrive at a good conclusion after hearing all sides of the debate. Hence we must only give them the APPROVED narrative.”
Hence today many people believe that censorship is okay once people “step over the line” of what is the APPROVED narrative.
Unfortunately, “stepping over the line” has an open ended definition. For example, voicing my Christian conservative beliefs can mean “stepping over the line” for a gay person who could be mad that I refuse to give his/her lifestyle my support, and verse versa? And there is the question of who should define what “stepping over the line” means? It seems awkward that big tech and government establishment should be given the power to decide whose voice is heard in a democracy where the state let alone capitalist corporations should derive their power, acceptance / legitimacy from the people’s consensus.
It is only right that FREE SPEECH should remain FREE 100%. Be it good or bad, measured or “stepping over the line” speech, it should be available to everyone. Those who have the power of the media or the Technology should not also be allowed to have the power to handle issues bordering on “stepping over the line”. Just as it is obtained in traditional media. People go to court to handle issues bordering on published falsehood, defamation and character assassination that arise from what is published on traditional media. They don’t get the media to have the power to decide whose voice should be heard. That is what true democracy entails. It is better if it remains that way. Placing a tag that says that “this claim is disputed” and a link to the dispute is enough. Big tech should not step into the conversation and decide who is right or wrong, or whose perspective is dangerous or safe for the public.
Understandably, the “dangers” of free speech is in the very nature of how we humans tend to handle our beliefs – there is the possibility to act upon certain beliefs that can cause harm to other people. But the question is whether the fact that people can act on dangerous ideas to harm others is enough reason to encourage censorship.
For example, if you believe that the earth is NOT flat, it means that you disapprove of those who believe that it is flat. You may tend to then believe that there is something wrong with those who think that the earth is flat. But does that guarantee that you hate them or will seek to hurt them physically? Not in most cases.
Another argument given in support of censorship is that it helps to prevent people from enforcing their beliefs on others. But the fact is that nobody is able to enforce their beliefs on OTHERS or EVERYONE in a democracy. What we are facing right now is not a case of people being forced to share others’ beliefs but people being INTOLERANT of disagreement and forbidding debates so much that they are glad that big tech is able to help them shut people up.
Again, that phenomenon of “crossing the line” to most people is not when you try to enforce your way of life on them (which is not possible), rather, it is for basic reasons such as arguing that there was voter fraud in the last US presidential elections. Just holding that basic disagreement is what “crossing the line” means to most people who now approve of censorship. It is not like anyone is FORCING them or threatening their life to share in that belief. But that they cannot tolerate it.
The fact remains that just as it was in the dark ages, being INTOLERANT of opposing views and forcing a single APPROVED narrative on everyone is dictatorial/ undemocratic and primitive.
Back to the earlier example, conservative Christians do not need the approval of atheists who see religious folks as crazy people, and they shouldn’t wish that big tech would help them shut the atheists up. Neither should they feel threatened by views shared by atheists. The debate should be open so that our human race can evolve. Just as I shouldn’t wish that big tech would help me shut atheists up, a gay person shouldn’t also wish that big tech would shut me up for disapproving of their gay lifestyle due to my conservative Christian beliefs.
We should be able to share same family, same home, same work place and same SOCIAL MEDIA SPACE with those who we disagree with. It is supposed to be common sense. In Southern Nigeria, we have families where the husband is a Muslim, the wife is a Christian and the kids don’t believe in any. Personally, I can have a child who is gay, despite my conservative Christian beliefs. I won’t change me for my child, neither will I change my child for me. We will hold our different beliefs.
Nobody should be CANCELLED in this day and age, whether at home, in the work place or on social media.
Lucky Okoedion is a believer of a new Nigeria where true democracy is practiced. He writes from Benin City, Nigeria. He can be reached on +2347038820118.
