Free Speech Case Study
In the constitution of the United States, the framers infused a very significant clause in the First Amendment that reads: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” Despite the plethora of theories and interpretations that have emanated from the above clause, the clause itself continues to serve as a safeguard for freedom of speech and of the press, an essential guarantee that is required for any country that professes democratic credentials.
Unfortunately, this crucial American constitutional provision is ambiguous, at best, in the constitutions of Zambia and Sierra Leone—two struggling democratic African countries, notorious for flagrant violations of free expression, even though they are signatories to international treaties that are supposed to ensure free speech and human rights. Until the constitutions of these two countries, under review (Zambia and Sierra Leone), are amended to echo international expectations of freedoms, and demonstrate basic fair treatment of humanity, media practitioners will continue to function under fear and intimidation, duress and censorship.
Bollinger and Stone (2002) posit that “the First Amendment is a cultural phenomenon” (p.174), in the United States—meaning, it was intended to be part of the overall cultural practices of the United States, but not so for Zambia and Sierra Leone. Also Fiss (1996) put forward that “speech is valued so importantly in the (American) Constitution…because it is essential for collective self-determination” (p.3)—if the people of Zambia and Sierra Leone are to be able to determine their individual destinies, the relevant tools to do that must be made available to them by way of guaranteeing freedom of expression. These different interpretations (although not without critique), of the freedom of expression (one of the central nerves of a participatory democratic culture) in the United States, have been the bedrock of the First Amendment, but this may not be the case for many countries worldwide.
Attacks on freedom of expression have become insidious, brutal and widespread, across the globe, especially in least developed countries, data from human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] and others) have suggested. For example, media reports, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (2000), reported that Sierra Leone was the most dangerous place for journalists, after three reporters were killed. The stories in most countries are similar, and are all pointing to one thing—stifling of freedom of expression by repressive regimes. These attempts to suppress freedom of expression run counter to the principles of Article 19, an international treaty that guarantees freedom of expression, and other international treaties of human and other civil liberties.
From a critical lens, this essay will explore press freedom in Zambia and Sierra Leone by exploring cases of press freedom violations in the last 10 years, contrary to international treaties, and local statutes. Looking at these cases only does not discount the importance or the seriousness under-girding the other cases. The violations of press freedom have led to arrests and detention of media practitioners under laws that have been determined aged, and infringing on the rights to free speech, according to human rights observers. The questions that I would attempt to find answers to include, why these violations continue in these countries? Can western theories be applied to a non-western situation in an attempt to explain, and address freedom of speech and the press? What are the legal and political ramifications at stake? How can they be addressed?
Briefly, irrespective of the differences, Zambia and Sierra Leone possess similarities in many ways (1) they are both African countries (members of the African Union), (2) they were both colonized by the British, (3) both countries still struggle economically and politically, (4) these were two regional powers, at least, academically, immediately after independence, and (5) their records on human rights bear uncanny resemblance.
Press Freedom in Zambia
Part three (Article 11) of the 1996 Constitution of Zambia, clearly makes provision for the protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the Individual. It recognizes and declares that “…every person in Zambia shall continue to be entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms,” that is to say, whatever his or her race, place of origin, political opinions, color, creed, sex or marital status, that person should have the right to (1) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law; (2) freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, movement and association.” Journalists have been arrested, charged and jailed under this law for years now; ironically, a violation of the very provision of guaranteed freedom of expression.
Under Kenneth Kaunda, who ruled Zambia for 27 years, and changed the country to a single-party state, journalists and any person who published any information against the government was charged with treason. The term popularly used, then, was ‘alarming the nation’ (National Journalist Association of Zambia, 2007). Rhetorically, as with most constitutions, if not all, the expression “alarming the nation” is not only vague, but a clear attempt by a repressive regime to undermine the very freedoms it professes to safeguard. This type of language has been (still being) used in countries around the world, with the intent to quiet opposition, and hold on to power, sometimes, indefinitely.
When Fredrick Chiluba became president, he revived multiparty politics, unfortunately, that did not change the application and manipulation of article 11 of the constitution. During Fred Chiluba’s regime, the term ‘alarming the nation’ was changed to ‘espionage and defamation of character.’ Any journalist who published any information that the government deemed derisive or confidential was punished under this law.
In recent years, the Managing Director of The Post newspaper, Fred M’membe, and Managing Editor, Bright Mwape, were charged with criminally defaming President Chiluba. They had published an article that quoted a former minister describing the President as a “rouge agent.” M’membe and another journalist, Masautso Phiri, were again arrested and charged with violating State Security Act for possessing and printing classified documents, which is yet to be proven in a court of law.
In March 1999, six reporters from The Post were charged with espionage, following an uproar caused by the national assemble, stemming from the lead story of the March 9 publication, which questioned the military capacity of Zambia to withstand an incursion from neighboring Angola. Angola and Zambia have existed as uneasy political bedfellows since 1976—each trading accusations.
In June 2002, four journalists from the weekly newspaper, The People, were charged with defaming the President in connection with an article that appeared in the May 25-31 issue, entitled “Mwanawasa Has Brain Disease.” It was a true story, because the President had gone for a medical checkup, and was told he had a brain condition, but he felt the publication was damaging to his political career, as result, he ordered the arrest and detention of the journalists.
In November 2005, Fred M’membe, the editor of The Post was charged with “defamation” and for “insulting” the President in an editorial in which he stated, among other things, that “the foolishness, stupidity and lack of humility exhibited by Mr. Mwanawasa…is something that one can never imagine to come out of the mouth of a president of this country (Zambia).” The question is how many tines have we not seen, read or heard journalists describing western leaders using the above words? Evidently, that arrest of Mr. M’membe is reminiscent of what transpires in other countries, particularly in Africa and South America. That arrest was designed to covertly slam prior restraint and self-censorship on journalists, and in the process, erode the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.
Critical legal theorists, human rights advocates and western countries would argue that those arrests were unjust, but one has to look at the context in which the arrests and detentions were made, and the underlying motive advanced by the national security agency in Zambia for making these arrests. The journalists may have been exercising their freedom of expression, as provided for, in the constitution, but at what cost?
Press Freedom in Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone experienced an 11 year rebel war, from 1991 to 2002, which left property estimated at millions of dollars destroyed, thousands of people killed, including several academics and journalists, while others were tortured, maimed and violated. The writer of this piece physically lived through part of the rebel carnage and destruction (his house was razed by fire), and has a scar on his right hand to justify his claims.
In the last 10 years, two cases that have come to the fore as classic examples of the blatant violation of press freedom, with impunity, I must add, were the arrest and incarceration of international award-winning journalist, Paul Kamara, under the 1965 Public Order Act, for allegedly publishing a “libelous” story about the President, Tejan Kabbah, during his work in the Sierra Leone Civil Service. The 1965 Public Order Act states that:
“Any person who—calls any person by a name or description other than his own, with intent to insult or annoy such person; or with intent to insult or annoy any person knowingly or causes to be published, in any newspaper, any false notice or advertisement of any birth, marriage or death, shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine, not exceeding twenty leones or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or both” (Sierra Leone Public Order Act, 1965).
It would be recalled that the time this law was enacted, Sierra Leone was just four years into its post-independence celebration, after the British had relinquished power, but had huge influence over the running of the country. Looking at the entire 1965 Act today, the language used in its construct is suggestive of colonial rule. We are now in the 21st century, therefore, the utility of that act is redundant because (1) it stifles free speech; (2) it suppresses creative expression; and (3) is being used as a political sledge hammer to bury genuine opposition, which breaches the principles of true democracy.
The other case that has come to place Sierra Leone in a damaging light was the alleged assaulting and killing of a journalist, Harry Yansaneh, in 2005, by a member of parliament, and her children. According to newspaper reports, and CPJ, the justice department in Freetown recently announced that the case will be dropped for what the Minister of Justice, Fred Carew, called “insufficient evidence,” discounting the autopsy report, which plainly stated that Mr. Yansaneh had died of a kidney failure, owing to the physical assault he received in the hands of his alleged killers, for a story he wrote on the dilapidating condition of the building (owned by the member of parliament) that housed so many newspapers, including For Di People newspaper, the paper, he (Yansaneh), worked for as an editor. What message does this send to the international community in general, and the country in particular, that a member of the ruling party can engage in gross violation of the laws of a country, and yet, go unpunished. Recently, a journalist asked, “these people, who are treating journalists with contempt, should flip the page, and see how it feels…when they need publicity, they run to the press, but go berserk when unfavorable news is written about them.”
Analysis and Conclusion
A theory like the Market Place of Ideas, a postulate by Justice Wendell Holmes, in the case of Abrams versus United States, but influenced by John Milton, John Stuart Mill and Greek political philosophy, suggest that “truth” is out there, all we need to do is to allow different view points, because any attempts to stifle opposing view may lead to us unable to find the “truth.” In the case of the press and society, the press is part of what Stanley Fish would call, “interpretive communities” of freedom of expression, as a result, the onus is on governments and the press to explore possibilities to solve the impasse surrounding freedom of expression, and press responsibility. Despite the critique that the theory (interpretive communities) is too communal, dislodging individuality, it is still the prime player in the tradition of free speech guarantee.
Speaking to dissent, Stephen Shiffrin in his book, The First Amendment, Democracy and Romance, argued that Dissent, the ability for individuals to disrupt the norm by way of action or through words should not be frowned on by politicians and others; yet frowning on dissent or opposing views from the press is clearly evident in Zambia and Sierra Leone. One of the problems African political leaders possess is their inability to respond to political criticism or dissent. They fail to understand that when one is thrust in the political limelight, scrutiny and opposition become the norm. The theories mentioned above have been critiqued for many reasons, and they may be western in character, but may offer fresh insights into press freedom violations in Zambia and Sierra Leone, because of their universality today, the world trends global in politics and economics. It may provide useful suggestions vis-à-vis press liberties and the conduct of journalists. Even in dissent, a stance the press usually takes, information must be factual, and the rights of others respected. Fiss (1996) would suggest that the libertarian and democratic theories of free speech must be cross-bred to balance free speech and press responsibility.
Based on recent (between 1997-2007) violations, arrests and vicissitudes perpetrated against the press, and based on the fact that the conduct of journalists, sometimes, have warranted the invocation of the 1965 Public Order Act, and the Espionage Act, a balance can be arranged to address press freedom and press responsibility in these two African countries by (1) getting the journalist associations in both countries to develop a Media Transformation Board whose purpose is to design regulations informed by legal provisions (dealing with free speech and responsibility) of the constitutions of both countries, and (2) educating law enforcement agencies about the role of the press in national development (political, economic and socio-cultural).
The above suggestion is supported by Lillian BeVier, writing in Bollinger and Stone’s book, “Eternally Vigilant” (2002), that in as much as the press is the forth estate—the ears and eyes and watchdogs for the people, and is there to trumpet the good, and also expose malfeasance, the press should be liable like all other business entities, because political information sold by the press, despite the public interest argument, brings huge financial proceeds to the press, and consequently, should be held accountable through some form of regulation (self or not). This suggestion does not disregard the present civil legal action a person who feels defamed can bring against the press.
Irrespective of the complexity of the argument, with respect to press freedom and press responsibility, critics (including, Ambassador Hall of the United States Embassy in Sierra Leone, and a host of press freedom advocates) have, in the recent past, eviscerated the extant argument put forward by African governments and their supporters that African journalists cannot be trusted to self-regulate because of the disunity among members of the profession, coupled with inadequate education and inexperience of some members, as a result, the United States Embassy in Freetown, supported a Global Seminar on protecting freedom of expression, recently, in which Ambassador Hall, diplomatically, called for the expunging or rewritten of the 1965 Public Order Act which has jailed, mistreated and killed journalists over the years. A journalist, Conrad Roy, with a degree from Fourah Bay College, was held under the 1965 Public Order Act, at the Pademba Road Prison, in Freetown, and died few years ago. Stories of arrests and mistreatments of journalists in the last 10 years are pervasive.
The status quo, in relation to press freedom and press responsibility, can change. Journalists are now getting advanced education more than ever before; they are now fully engaged in the political process (attempting to regulate themselves, through the Independent Media Commission [but not independent enough], conducting civic education, organizing political debates, and capacity building for members; evidence of these conducts are present in Zambia too). Zambia and Sierra Leone have the resources, and political capacity to address the issues of press freedom and press responsibility now, to avoid being tarnished in the international community, especially now that most international financial and technical supports are tied to demonstrated democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression, the press, a prime beneficiary.
References
Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Express. (2005). “Zambia: Journalist Arrested for Defamation”. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//www.article19.org.
Bollinger, L. & Stone, G. (2002). Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bunker, M. (2001). Critiquing Free Speech. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Committee to Protect Journalists (2006). Attacks 2006:Africa. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.cpj.org/attacks06/Africa.
Fish, S. (1994). There is no such as Free Speech: And it’s a Good Thing, too. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fiss, O. (1993). The Irony of Free Speech. Boston, MA: Harvard Press.
International PEN. (2005). “Sierra Leone: Kamara Completes First Year in Prison.” Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.internationalpen.org.uk.
Ministry of Justice. Republic of Sierra Leone. (1965). Public Order Act of 1965. Freetown: Government Printing Press.
Ministry of Justice. Republic of Zambia. (1996). Constitution. Lusaka: Government Printing Press.
Standard Times Newspaper. (2001). “Journalist Jailed for Libel”. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http://wwwallafrica.com/stories.
The Jamaica Observer. (2003). “Zambian Journalist Arrested for Publishing False News.” Retrieved on Monday, June 4, 2007 from http//:www.jamaicaobserver.com/news.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2007). Press Freedom. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.unesco.org.
In the constitution of the United States, the framers infused a very significant clause in the First Amendment that reads: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” Despite the plethora of theories and interpretations that have emanated from the above clause, the clause itself continues to serve as a safeguard for freedom of speech and of the press, an essential guarantee that is required for any country that professes democratic credentials.
Unfortunately, this crucial American constitutional provision is ambiguous, at best, in the constitutions of Zambia and Sierra Leone—two struggling democratic African countries, notorious for flagrant violations of free expression, even though they are signatories to international treaties that are supposed to ensure free speech and human rights. Until the constitutions of these two countries, under review (Zambia and Sierra Leone), are amended to echo international expectations of freedoms, and demonstrate basic fair treatment of humanity, media practitioners will continue to function under fear and intimidation, duress and censorship.
Bollinger and Stone (2002) posit that “the First Amendment is a cultural phenomenon” (p.174), in the United States—meaning, it was intended to be part of the overall cultural practices of the United States, but not so for Zambia and Sierra Leone. Also Fiss (1996) put forward that “speech is valued so importantly in the (American) Constitution…because it is essential for collective self-determination” (p.3)—if the people of Zambia and Sierra Leone are to be able to determine their individual destinies, the relevant tools to do that must be made available to them by way of guaranteeing freedom of expression. These different interpretations (although not without critique), of the freedom of expression (one of the central nerves of a participatory democratic culture) in the United States, have been the bedrock of the First Amendment, but this may not be the case for many countries worldwide.
Attacks on freedom of expression have become insidious, brutal and widespread, across the globe, especially in least developed countries, data from human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] and others) have suggested. For example, media reports, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (2000), reported that Sierra Leone was the most dangerous place for journalists, after three reporters were killed. The stories in most countries are similar, and are all pointing to one thing—stifling of freedom of expression by repressive regimes. These attempts to suppress freedom of expression run counter to the principles of Article 19, an international treaty that guarantees freedom of expression, and other international treaties of human and other civil liberties.
From a critical lens, this essay will explore press freedom in Zambia and Sierra Leone by exploring cases of press freedom violations in the last 10 years, contrary to international treaties, and local statutes. Looking at these cases only does not discount the importance or the seriousness under-girding the other cases. The violations of press freedom have led to arrests and detention of media practitioners under laws that have been determined aged, and infringing on the rights to free speech, according to human rights observers. The questions that I would attempt to find answers to include, why these violations continue in these countries? Can western theories be applied to a non-western situation in an attempt to explain, and address freedom of speech and the press? What are the legal and political ramifications at stake? How can they be addressed?
Briefly, irrespective of the differences, Zambia and Sierra Leone possess similarities in many ways (1) they are both African countries (members of the African Union), (2) they were both colonized by the British, (3) both countries still struggle economically and politically, (4) these were two regional powers, at least, academically, immediately after independence, and (5) their records on human rights bear uncanny resemblance.
Press Freedom in Zambia
Part three (Article 11) of the 1996 Constitution of Zambia, clearly makes provision for the protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the Individual. It recognizes and declares that “…every person in Zambia shall continue to be entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms,” that is to say, whatever his or her race, place of origin, political opinions, color, creed, sex or marital status, that person should have the right to (1) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law; (2) freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, movement and association.” Journalists have been arrested, charged and jailed under this law for years now; ironically, a violation of the very provision of guaranteed freedom of expression.
Under Kenneth Kaunda, who ruled Zambia for 27 years, and changed the country to a single-party state, journalists and any person who published any information against the government was charged with treason. The term popularly used, then, was ‘alarming the nation’ (National Journalist Association of Zambia, 2007). Rhetorically, as with most constitutions, if not all, the expression “alarming the nation” is not only vague, but a clear attempt by a repressive regime to undermine the very freedoms it professes to safeguard. This type of language has been (still being) used in countries around the world, with the intent to quiet opposition, and hold on to power, sometimes, indefinitely.
When Fredrick Chiluba became president, he revived multiparty politics, unfortunately, that did not change the application and manipulation of article 11 of the constitution. During Fred Chiluba’s regime, the term ‘alarming the nation’ was changed to ‘espionage and defamation of character.’ Any journalist who published any information that the government deemed derisive or confidential was punished under this law.
In recent years, the Managing Director of The Post newspaper, Fred M’membe, and Managing Editor, Bright Mwape, were charged with criminally defaming President Chiluba. They had published an article that quoted a former minister describing the President as a “rouge agent.” M’membe and another journalist, Masautso Phiri, were again arrested and charged with violating State Security Act for possessing and printing classified documents, which is yet to be proven in a court of law.
In March 1999, six reporters from The Post were charged with espionage, following an uproar caused by the national assemble, stemming from the lead story of the March 9 publication, which questioned the military capacity of Zambia to withstand an incursion from neighboring Angola. Angola and Zambia have existed as uneasy political bedfellows since 1976—each trading accusations.
In June 2002, four journalists from the weekly newspaper, The People, were charged with defaming the President in connection with an article that appeared in the May 25-31 issue, entitled “Mwanawasa Has Brain Disease.” It was a true story, because the President had gone for a medical checkup, and was told he had a brain condition, but he felt the publication was damaging to his political career, as result, he ordered the arrest and detention of the journalists.
In November 2005, Fred M’membe, the editor of The Post was charged with “defamation” and for “insulting” the President in an editorial in which he stated, among other things, that “the foolishness, stupidity and lack of humility exhibited by Mr. Mwanawasa…is something that one can never imagine to come out of the mouth of a president of this country (Zambia).” The question is how many tines have we not seen, read or heard journalists describing western leaders using the above words? Evidently, that arrest of Mr. M’membe is reminiscent of what transpires in other countries, particularly in Africa and South America. That arrest was designed to covertly slam prior restraint and self-censorship on journalists, and in the process, erode the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.
Critical legal theorists, human rights advocates and western countries would argue that those arrests were unjust, but one has to look at the context in which the arrests and detentions were made, and the underlying motive advanced by the national security agency in Zambia for making these arrests. The journalists may have been exercising their freedom of expression, as provided for, in the constitution, but at what cost?
Press Freedom in Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone experienced an 11 year rebel war, from 1991 to 2002, which left property estimated at millions of dollars destroyed, thousands of people killed, including several academics and journalists, while others were tortured, maimed and violated. The writer of this piece physically lived through part of the rebel carnage and destruction (his house was razed by fire), and has a scar on his right hand to justify his claims.
In the last 10 years, two cases that have come to the fore as classic examples of the blatant violation of press freedom, with impunity, I must add, were the arrest and incarceration of international award-winning journalist, Paul Kamara, under the 1965 Public Order Act, for allegedly publishing a “libelous” story about the President, Tejan Kabbah, during his work in the Sierra Leone Civil Service. The 1965 Public Order Act states that:
“Any person who—calls any person by a name or description other than his own, with intent to insult or annoy such person; or with intent to insult or annoy any person knowingly or causes to be published, in any newspaper, any false notice or advertisement of any birth, marriage or death, shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine, not exceeding twenty leones or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or both” (Sierra Leone Public Order Act, 1965).
It would be recalled that the time this law was enacted, Sierra Leone was just four years into its post-independence celebration, after the British had relinquished power, but had huge influence over the running of the country. Looking at the entire 1965 Act today, the language used in its construct is suggestive of colonial rule. We are now in the 21st century, therefore, the utility of that act is redundant because (1) it stifles free speech; (2) it suppresses creative expression; and (3) is being used as a political sledge hammer to bury genuine opposition, which breaches the principles of true democracy.
The other case that has come to place Sierra Leone in a damaging light was the alleged assaulting and killing of a journalist, Harry Yansaneh, in 2005, by a member of parliament, and her children. According to newspaper reports, and CPJ, the justice department in Freetown recently announced that the case will be dropped for what the Minister of Justice, Fred Carew, called “insufficient evidence,” discounting the autopsy report, which plainly stated that Mr. Yansaneh had died of a kidney failure, owing to the physical assault he received in the hands of his alleged killers, for a story he wrote on the dilapidating condition of the building (owned by the member of parliament) that housed so many newspapers, including For Di People newspaper, the paper, he (Yansaneh), worked for as an editor. What message does this send to the international community in general, and the country in particular, that a member of the ruling party can engage in gross violation of the laws of a country, and yet, go unpunished. Recently, a journalist asked, “these people, who are treating journalists with contempt, should flip the page, and see how it feels…when they need publicity, they run to the press, but go berserk when unfavorable news is written about them.”
Analysis and Conclusion
A theory like the Market Place of Ideas, a postulate by Justice Wendell Holmes, in the case of Abrams versus United States, but influenced by John Milton, John Stuart Mill and Greek political philosophy, suggest that “truth” is out there, all we need to do is to allow different view points, because any attempts to stifle opposing view may lead to us unable to find the “truth.” In the case of the press and society, the press is part of what Stanley Fish would call, “interpretive communities” of freedom of expression, as a result, the onus is on governments and the press to explore possibilities to solve the impasse surrounding freedom of expression, and press responsibility. Despite the critique that the theory (interpretive communities) is too communal, dislodging individuality, it is still the prime player in the tradition of free speech guarantee.
Speaking to dissent, Stephen Shiffrin in his book, The First Amendment, Democracy and Romance, argued that Dissent, the ability for individuals to disrupt the norm by way of action or through words should not be frowned on by politicians and others; yet frowning on dissent or opposing views from the press is clearly evident in Zambia and Sierra Leone. One of the problems African political leaders possess is their inability to respond to political criticism or dissent. They fail to understand that when one is thrust in the political limelight, scrutiny and opposition become the norm. The theories mentioned above have been critiqued for many reasons, and they may be western in character, but may offer fresh insights into press freedom violations in Zambia and Sierra Leone, because of their universality today, the world trends global in politics and economics. It may provide useful suggestions vis-à-vis press liberties and the conduct of journalists. Even in dissent, a stance the press usually takes, information must be factual, and the rights of others respected. Fiss (1996) would suggest that the libertarian and democratic theories of free speech must be cross-bred to balance free speech and press responsibility.
Based on recent (between 1997-2007) violations, arrests and vicissitudes perpetrated against the press, and based on the fact that the conduct of journalists, sometimes, have warranted the invocation of the 1965 Public Order Act, and the Espionage Act, a balance can be arranged to address press freedom and press responsibility in these two African countries by (1) getting the journalist associations in both countries to develop a Media Transformation Board whose purpose is to design regulations informed by legal provisions (dealing with free speech and responsibility) of the constitutions of both countries, and (2) educating law enforcement agencies about the role of the press in national development (political, economic and socio-cultural).
The above suggestion is supported by Lillian BeVier, writing in Bollinger and Stone’s book, “Eternally Vigilant” (2002), that in as much as the press is the forth estate—the ears and eyes and watchdogs for the people, and is there to trumpet the good, and also expose malfeasance, the press should be liable like all other business entities, because political information sold by the press, despite the public interest argument, brings huge financial proceeds to the press, and consequently, should be held accountable through some form of regulation (self or not). This suggestion does not disregard the present civil legal action a person who feels defamed can bring against the press.
Irrespective of the complexity of the argument, with respect to press freedom and press responsibility, critics (including, Ambassador Hall of the United States Embassy in Sierra Leone, and a host of press freedom advocates) have, in the recent past, eviscerated the extant argument put forward by African governments and their supporters that African journalists cannot be trusted to self-regulate because of the disunity among members of the profession, coupled with inadequate education and inexperience of some members, as a result, the United States Embassy in Freetown, supported a Global Seminar on protecting freedom of expression, recently, in which Ambassador Hall, diplomatically, called for the expunging or rewritten of the 1965 Public Order Act which has jailed, mistreated and killed journalists over the years. A journalist, Conrad Roy, with a degree from Fourah Bay College, was held under the 1965 Public Order Act, at the Pademba Road Prison, in Freetown, and died few years ago. Stories of arrests and mistreatments of journalists in the last 10 years are pervasive.
The status quo, in relation to press freedom and press responsibility, can change. Journalists are now getting advanced education more than ever before; they are now fully engaged in the political process (attempting to regulate themselves, through the Independent Media Commission [but not independent enough], conducting civic education, organizing political debates, and capacity building for members; evidence of these conducts are present in Zambia too). Zambia and Sierra Leone have the resources, and political capacity to address the issues of press freedom and press responsibility now, to avoid being tarnished in the international community, especially now that most international financial and technical supports are tied to demonstrated democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression, the press, a prime beneficiary.
References
Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Express. (2005). “Zambia: Journalist Arrested for Defamation”. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//www.article19.org.
Bollinger, L. & Stone, G. (2002). Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bunker, M. (2001). Critiquing Free Speech. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Committee to Protect Journalists (2006). Attacks 2006:Africa. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.cpj.org/attacks06/Africa.
Fish, S. (1994). There is no such as Free Speech: And it’s a Good Thing, too. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fiss, O. (1993). The Irony of Free Speech. Boston, MA: Harvard Press.
International PEN. (2005). “Sierra Leone: Kamara Completes First Year in Prison.” Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.internationalpen.org.uk.
Ministry of Justice. Republic of Sierra Leone. (1965). Public Order Act of 1965. Freetown: Government Printing Press.
Ministry of Justice. Republic of Zambia. (1996). Constitution. Lusaka: Government Printing Press.
Standard Times Newspaper. (2001). “Journalist Jailed for Libel”. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http://wwwallafrica.com/stories.
The Jamaica Observer. (2003). “Zambian Journalist Arrested for Publishing False News.” Retrieved on Monday, June 4, 2007 from http//:www.jamaicaobserver.com/news.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2007). Press Freedom. Retrieved on Monday June 4, 2007, from http//:www.unesco.org.
Labels: Free Speech Case Study
posted by Vickylandys | 6:19 AM
|
1 comments
