We’ve all been there, browsing through our respective social media accounts, be it on Twitter, Facebook or even Instagram and you come across a post from someone that has really caused quite a frenzy. Everyone knows that freedom of speech is a fundamental human rights that is guaranteed in most countries and it forms the very backbone of any democracy. Free speech has since allowed people to voice out their opinions in certain aspects which they would not have normally done so before, this sense of empowerment, if done right, should be seen as a great development for not only an individual but the country as a whole. However, when there is an abuse of free speech, it tends to lead to a rise in hate speech, especially with the rise in the technological advancements and the use of social media.
The Internet and Hate Speech in Malaysia
There is no doubt that the internet and social media has made it easy for all of us to go about our day to day lives. However, there seems to be a rise in incidences in Malaysia whereby a lot of hateful content is being spread online and it all boils down to there being somewhat of a false sense of security between the user and the rest of the world as they are more than able to hide their identity from the rest of the world by way of a specific username.
When Datuk Dr Haron Din, a spiritual leader of PAS, passed away, there was a certain ill-feeling that the members of the public had when voicing their opinion on his passing on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. A member of the opposition, Jeff Ooi, tweeted “Adios Haron Din. Let there be peace”, which was retweeted, liked and shared on other social media platforms which caused a riff between the various religious groups in Malaysia as it was deemed insensitive, and for good reasons.
Jeff Ooi was then investigated under s.298 of the Penal Code[1], due his tweets being deemed as “uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.” Staying on the same topic of the former PAS member, a former journalist named Sidek Kamiso, was investigated under s.298A of the Penal Code due to his tweet as it was deemed as causing religious disharmony when he said “Someone who made his career out of selling air jampi for any illness succumbed to his illness in a modern hospital in San Franciso.”[2]
Other instances include a tweet by Eric Paulson, of Lawyers for Liberty, in Malaysia when he equated sermons that were approved by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia during Friday prayers as promoting extremism.[3] These are notable figures in society who have become bold in their speech, up to the point where it attracts criminal investigation. Social media has become a great tool in our lives but it has caused unwarranted distress and turmoil among the many races and religions in Malaysia, therefore restrictions to hate speech are justified on the grounds of national security, although the law should not be exercised without just cause.
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly:- A change in the Sedition Act[4]
A positive change came to light by way of Section 3 of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015, (the “Act”) which has basically gone to the extent of removing sedition against the government, thus allowing more freedom to people to criticize the government, something that they may not have been able to do before[5] However, the issue that arises is the fact that this piece of legislation does not in any way address hate speech directly. Section 2 of the Act does make reference to publication by way of “electronic means” but doesn’t really give a deeper and clearer definition of sedition in other key terms.[6] This is because anything anyone says can be used to show that it has a tendency to cause hostility and hatred, which for a piece of legislation that serves to limit a guaranteed right to freedom of speech through our constitution, simply will not do.
In addition to that, the Act makes it clear that intention is not relevant when someone commits an offence under this Act, as stated under Section 3(c). This would mean that it has now akin to a strict liability. The new amendments would make it easier for a person to be investigated and potentially charged for their posts online that are deemed to be seditious. These amendments can be seen as opening the doors wider to an action that amounts to sedition, especially when a person can be convicted regardless of their intention.
What is more of a concern is that s.6A of the Act, does not allow a judge to even consider the youthful age of the offender.[7] We’ve all been in a spot when we’re younger and when we didn’t know better, words were just that, simple words, there was no intention of hate in whatever we said. The youth in our country should be educated that their words have implications, towards them and the person those words are aimed at. Removing the ability of a judge to consider the youthful age of the offender deprives these youths from learning and gaining an cognitive ability to think before they choose to use those words.
Conclusion
The issue of hate speech is a very peculiar problem as it involves the protection of multiple rights. An exercise needs to be carried out to determine situations whereby it is justifiable to limit free speech in our country. However, the first step forward is for the government to acknowledge that hate speech brings about a great deal of anger in the eyes of the public, especially in this age whereby the use of social media is more and more rampant. The amendments to the Sedition Act can be seen as a way forward to combat these problems but it doesn’t go to the root cause of it all.
It would be easy for us to say that “everyone should be responsible for their own actions” but the fact of the matter is, we’re human, we make mistakes and sometimes that’s okay. The people should be educated on any future laws against hate speech and should be seen to help curb a problem rather than seen as a way to limit the everyone’s constitutional right. As this is a very sensitive subject, any effort by the government should be aimed at removing any uncertainty in the law and they should be urged to take their time when coming up with a piece of legislation to tackle this problem, not to do so in haste. At the same time, it would be a good reminder to tell everyone that in a time of much uncertainty right now, it’s always good to be nice to each other, spread love and stop hate.
References: [1] Section 298 of the Penal Code. [2] Section 298A of the Penal Code. [3] http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/jenayah/ericpaulsen- disiasat-ikut-akta-hasutan-1.46659. [4] Sedition Act [5] Section 3 of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 [6] Section 2 of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 [7] Section 6A of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015.
Comentários