Freer than ever?

With power comes responsibility

Nassim Nicholas Taleb posits that predicting future political developments is largely an exercise in futility. His argument is that in order to make such predictions you need to factor in far too many unpredictable factors, particularly important among which is technology. Regimes shaken by social activism in the present age and hounded by greater flow of information thanks to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. would agree. Whether it is footage depicting Iranian government’s brutality or the viral Kony 2012 video, developments in digital technology have fundamentally altered our lives—and have given a huge number among us the capability to alter others’ lives.

Fascinating research also shows that spending more and more time in the online world can affect our concentration span when we are required to disconnect. Also, a new paper points out that the arrangement of the QWERTY keyboard influences our choice of words — words formed by letters on the right hand side of the keyboard are becoming more likeable because it is easier to find the constituent letters.

In this day and age, everyone with access to online social networking tools has become a broadcasting station. This democratisation of our ability to broadcast is unprecedented in human history. Whether it is your blog, Facebook or Twitter account or your ability to comment upon articles online, you have a chance to participate in and indeed influence discourse like never before. This ‘digital self’ of ours raises pressing issues we must debate.
The power to broadcast and share your views, of course, has many positives. There are many things, as a colleague pointed out to me, that people can say with the comfort of anonymity online that they cannot or may not say while standing in a town square. This, of course, could be either because of the fact that you don’t feel confident voicing your views in person or that the government does not allow you to. This anonymity of our digital selves can also lead to greater irreverence, in ways positive and negative. We now have the choice of brutally insulting someone, rather than engaging with an argument, in ways that would be uncomfortable in-person. Anyone criticising the PTI online would know!

Online bullying and invasion of privacy are also serious issues and can have serious consequences too. Consider the heartbreaking case of Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers student who committed suicide after his roommate posted a video that embarrassed Mr Clementi to the point where he could not handle the unjust ridicule directed at him.

This mushroom growth in broadcasting stations, if we may call it that, may also be affecting the quality of resultant discourse which may not always come across as sophisticated. Those espousing Adam Smith’s ideas would trust competition to lead to the most efficient outcomes. Others, particularly governments and those at the receiving end of crude comments, may disagree.

The ease of broadcasting can lead to a preponderance of simplistic views as well but that must not detract us from the sanctity that speech is worthy of. When the talk of PTA banning obscene words gained ground I was largely disappointed with the online discourse. For me the issue was not about deriving amusement from the list of words but it was an opportunity to debate the legitimate limits on state power to regulate language. I felt that issue got lost among the noise but you may disagree.

People espouse or oppose ideas in different ways and those of us who feel the discourse should be more rigorous must of course take greater responsibility. In the Maya Khan fiasco, the civil society achieved a victory by signing online petitions. Certain limits were, however, crossed. The idea was to criticise her actions and not to abuse her person. To the extent that the discourse was corrupted, we must all think about our responsibility to urge caution in relevant ways.

Of course at many levels the discourse in Pakistan, as elsewhere, has been liberated. To give just one example, no newspaper or TV channel could have represented the variety of views that came to the fore through social networking sites regarding Ms. Veena Malik’s controversial photo-shoot. Our discussion of, and engagement with, politics too has reached new heights. In many ways this deserves celebration.

Still the discourse surrounding unpopular and divisive views, e.g. role of religion in state affairs and minorities’ rights, may prove to be the biggest challenge. The comfort of not being confronted in person by a screaming crowd can provide greater courage but maybe this too has limits. Those in opposition can use the same opportunity to attack and ridicule. What are the acceptable limits in this regard? Are there any limits? Where do we draw the line, if we draw one?

I feel passionately about free speech. And my thoughts here today are merely meant to raise issues that we can all debate — before this speech is imperilled in the name of national security or the glory of Islam. The so-called liberals, while writing blogs, oppose bans on pornography but fail to engage with similar issues when they call for speeches by Difa-e-Pakistan Council to be banned. I am passionately opposed to the DPC and everything that it represents but as an advocate of free speech I am not clear of the limits on hate speech or speech allegedly inciting violence. Shouldn’t we debate the limits? And if hate speech is worthy of being banned then how is banning porn any less of a judgment call along similar lines? In fact, the American courts have often acted with greater vigour to regulate obscenity than to mute hate speech. There are no easy answers but the promise of a fascinating debate and serious consequences must keep us all engaged.

Note: Special thanks to Ivar Hartmann and KR for sharing their thoughts.

The writer is a Barrister and an Advocate of the High Courts. He is currently pursuing his LLM in the US. He can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @wordoflaw