NEW MEDIA, LAW AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

By the side, a man in a building uniform sits on an elevated metal stand. He seems to be aware of what he is doing, what with the tinge of caution .In one of his pockets a folded newspaper protrudes, revealing the word: national. A man is standing by two men with a microphone interviewing one. One of them throws his face away from the camera. A man stares at the camera and makes a circled impression on it. Scores of enthusiastic youths shout Nazi chants with ferocity. The police get on stage to pick sympathizers. This is one of the many despicable Nazi/racist scenes freely available on YouTube. Perhaps no websites encapsulates the excesses of internet liberality than YouTube. YouTube, founded in Febuary 2005,by three Paypal employees, is a free video sharing site. With freedom comes abuse. The ability of the internet to embrace millions, opens it up to excess. Freedom of expression on the internet is made saucier with anonymity and has led to wanton defamation of people.

Internet consists of interconnected networks of computers that transmit data by packet switching, using the standard internet protocol. New Media consists of modes of communication powered by digital technonlogy.They include websites,email,mobile and podcast.

The advent of internet has spawned many groups catering for different aspects. The physical texture of daily existence has gone virtual. Different national, ethnic and religious groups vie for space on the internet. The internet is a kaleisdospic impression. It can be colorless and vivacious. If you walk down a cafeteria you might see people chatting away, smiling and exchanging friendly jokes. The internet has made this possible online in its own way. Now you can join loads of forums catering for divergent interests. Sometimes, you can come across news, you have never heard of before, about your country or the world. This may be because it originates from a specialist website accessible only by subscription. However, with the rise in internet usage, defamatory challenges have arisen.

Can one be liable for defamation on the internet? While the internet is a relatively new ground and may be absolutely impossible to know everyone who uses it, it may not provide the individual with unbridled leeway to spew bile on a person or group. The anonymity the internet grants, makes it almost possible for anyone to stroll into an internet café and spew libel or slander and get way with it. You do not suffer first-nerves on entrance, so its appeal is infectious.

But increasingly, many governments are looking into freedom of expression on the internet. In the early heydays of the internet, it was a beautiful doll to scribble on, fantasize about; but today the honeymoon bubble is out and the internet has become a steep battleground for criminal, terrorist and other underworld dwellers, spurring a need for urgent action. The internet is a shadow of the real world. Just about everything can be done on the internet. Gone are the days of browsing, looking around and marveling at its unearthly creativity, it is now part of us. We keep tab of our bank accounts on the internet, shop ,send emails to friends and so on. The internet is endearing not least because of its ability for reasonable delivery, but its provision of wide breadth of information. But yet a middle point needs to be struck in its usage.

People have taken advantage of the pliancy of the internet to dissipate information falsely about people and it is to this end that great attention has been turned. The internet had invited many to it because of its ability to absorb differing views at once.

Every democracy boasts of tolerance. A system where, dissent as well as favored speeches/written words are allowed to live together. Laws are put in place to achieve this as well as law enforcement consisting of police amongst others. History is replete with autocrats who attempted to stifle media freedom to entrench opposition to progress. Throughout the world, in democratic set-ups, where media rights are enshrined, parliaments attempt to thread the fine line between maintaining individual reputation against intrusion and freedom of speech.

Democracy presupposes liberty of speech and participation. It is a system unimpinged by the ball and chain of autocracy. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of democracy. Because humans are different in their outlook, there is bound to be differing views on issues. Government tries to strike a balance between the need to protect the public or groups against defamatory volleys with the need to guarantee freedom of speech.

Defamation is a tort law that seeks to protect the reputation of the claimant or the wronged individual. It consists of libel and slander. Libel takes a permanent nature while slander a temporal one.

The individual/media has defenses against a charge of defamation: Justification; Fair comment; Innocent dissemination; Privilege, consisting of absolute and qualified privilege. As early as 1996, there has been laws checking the excesses of internet usage.

In the British case Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd, the ISP(Demon Internet) were a newsgroup. In January 1997, an anonymous person made defamatory statements against Dr.Godfrey on the newsgroup.He complained four days later to Demon Internet but they pay no heed to him. The statements stayed on for two weeks. Demon Internet Ltd, were charged.

The 2006, English libel case, Keith-Smiths v William. Tracy Williams falsely accused Michael Keith Smith, former UKIP(a British party) candidate, of being a sexual offender and racist in a yahoo chatroom.Smith was awarded 10,000 pounds in damages.

Mark Stephens, head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent, commenting on the judgment in an article Verdict casts dark cloud over freedom of speech wrote:

‘The judge has applied the old-fashioned, anachronistic tenets of libel law to the fast-evolving medium of blogging, which recognizes the democratisation of knowledge.

‘The internet is a valuable means of exchanging information, ideas and, yes, sometimes abuse. But anyone who reads an abusive web posting will treat it with the weight it deserves: very little. It is watercooler conversation that does no real damage.’

He warns that the judgment casts a shadow on the viability of the internet. ‘The vibrancy of the internet could be under threat from frivolous actions… The success of blogs is the ability people have to meet speech with more speech. We can put forward our own policies, dismiss ranters and attach links to sites promoting our views...’ he said.

Many activists have found a safe haven on the internet. A Zimbabwean newspaper, that was shut down by the Mugabe government opened up shortly afterwards, on the internet. Reporters Without Borders(RWB), a group founded by its Secretary, General Robert Menard, says that this year, 2006, 81 journalists and 32 media assistants have been killed. It also records 142 journalists imprisoned,32 Media assistants imprisoned and 60 Cyber dissidents imprisoned.

The Nigerian internet sojourn began in earnest in 2001, when the communication sector was liberalized. With it came a historic upsurge in internet cafes and phone lines. There was a growth in blogging naturally for a country that had been under the throes of dictatorship. But still, journalists live with their hearts in their mouth. Journalists Without Borders (JWB) ranks Nigeria ,120th on its ranking list out of 168 countries, with a score of 32.0 this year. In this year's annual report about Nigeria , it laments the poor treatment of journalists. However, it praised the privately owned press for being ‘robust, pluralist and populist. It does not mince its words about the powerful. Its outspokenness, won through years of “guerrilla journalism”, secret meetings and under-the-counter distribution, is general.’ It provides a list :

11 October 2006 - “Sedition” case dropped against one journalist, another case adjourned

11 October 2006 - Government urged to go all-out in investigation into leading journalist’s murder

25 August 2006 - Two Ebonyi Voice journalists released provisionally

23 August 2006 - Deaths threats against Daily Independent political affairs editor

6 June 2006 - Leading TV political presenter released

16 May 2006 - Calls for third presidential term increase pressure on news media

19 April 2006 - Newspaper publisher hounded by power-hungry deputy state governor

22 March 2006 - Beatings, threat, arrests, unfair dismissal, censorship – Nigeria’s journalists see no improvement

The bottom three countries in the ranking list are North Korea , Turkmenistan and Eritrea . ‘The three worst violators of free expression - North Korea, bottom of the Index at 168th place, Turkmenistan (167th) and Eritrea (166th) - have clamped down further. The torture death of Turkmenistan journalist Ogulsapar Muradova shows that the country’s leader, “President-for-Life” Separmurad Nyazov, is willing to use extreme violence against those who dare to criticize him. Reporters Without Borders is also extremely concerned about a number of Eritrean journalists who have been imprisoned in secret for more than five years. The all-powerful North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, also continues to totally control the media....’ the Paris-based organization said.

The internet might prove to be the waterloo of autocratic governments who hold their citizens with iron grip. Politicians on the fiddle are latched at, on the internet as well as people dancing attendance on them. The internet is a nightmare for dictatorships because of its easy transfer of information and its immense potential to open the world up to countries hitherto locked in enforced ignorance of the outside world .It is no wonder, repressive governments or weak democracies seem to censor the internet the heaviest. In North Korea, there is little internet access and it is still heavily censored. Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China have censorship programmes amongst others. Many countries have pulled all stops, and rightly so in my judgment, to stem the tide of vices on the internet.

LEADERSHIP: MERIT OR ETHNICITY?

Where there are any two humans, there would most likely be division. Whether they are related by birth, ethnicity or race. Between North and South, rich and poor, tall and short. If a Nigerian, whose ethnic affiliation leans towards another by way of language and culture,tells you that, he is related to you ethnically, do not listen to him. Run way from him. It is all flatteries. Deep within him, it is a superficial sentiment that serves no real purpose and wouldn’t hinder him from plunging a knife into you. When time for politics arises or when push comes to shove, he would be your staunchest foe. He would whip up anti-ethnic sentiments against you.

I was speaking to someone once when the topic of ethnicity in Nigerian leadership came up. I spoke about the importance of seeing people on the basis of their input or integrity rather than their origin. He eyes bulged. ‘They would cut you down to have. You have to have your own man up there!’ he eyes snarled.

In Nigeria many people consider ethnicity to be as important as leadership. But can we carry on forever on this pedestal? We should bow out from ethnic considerations and move into ability. Looking at leaders according to their measure. One would have expected leadership to be consigned solely to the best, the strongest, the fittest. The one that is able to carry the ship through thick and thin; but in modern day Nigeria, it is a mirage.

We have had a nation for 46 years and the old ghost of ethnicity continues to hunt us. The president or leader of Nigeria carries with him his entire ethnic group, albeit unintentionally; thrown to him by the bent, sully world of our leadership. His every action is interpreted on the basis of his ethnic group. Till today, ethnic groups are pilloried for the actions of their own in pre and post independence. When they talk or write condescendingly about these leaders, it is usually a smokescreen to defame their ethnic groups. Infact, there is no such country as Nigeria. What we have are hamlets of ethnicities strewn apart in division and held together by the thread of hypocrisy. Whatever action he does is framed and seen on ethnic lines. Never my own,it belongs to them! they say. It is in this nonsensical cry that breeds a schizophrenic escapism from responsibility and fuels selfish agitation for leadership. The president’s people come into stereotypical light.His people are meant to take the heat; the bad mouth for the actions of a man they had no chioce in installing. But this is modern day Nigeria where the idea of unity is a concept of imagination.

Pity an Onitsha man, today who insists his people took off from the old Benin kingdom and landed in their present day location. He may be correct in his belief, but in today’s Nigeria, he would be seen as Igbo because his outlook in terms of language and culture are steeped in Igbo tradition. He may have 500 years of oral history to back up his assertions, but it would still not wash in modern Nigeria. He may trace his Obi Kingship lineage all the way to a rebel Eze Chima, who lead an insurrection against an iron-fist Benin king and journeyed into the wild blue yonder and landed amongst the Igbos in the East; and over years shed their language and culture. All these may be true, afterall, America today is historically a conglomeration of European ethnic groups .At different periods in its history-- French ,Spanish, Danish etc were spoken; but today most Americans speak English. Nnamdi Azikiwe, in one of his books emphasized the origins of his people the Onitshas in clear terms; to be one of Old Benin ancestry. But this would not sell for a mile, even though he spoke Hausa and Yoruba just as good as the natives, perhaps even more than he did the Igbo language. The question is: how long would we tarry on this narrow road? Isn’t it time that we embrace a system that emphasizes qualities and downplays ethnicity? Haven’t we come of age? If not,when? So what if one ethnic group holds presidency for 6000 years? Should that matter? This all boils down to the unity question that calls into question our compactness as a nation.

The fact is that in Nigeria, there is little or no unity anywhere, both at state and national level. States that are predominantly monoethnic are fractured along sub-ethnic lines; while states that have a large stock of indigenous mixture of ethnic groups divide along tribal lines. And so people grow out of this narrow prism and become pests at national level. At state level they clamor for governorship. They argue that only governorship would bring succor to the morass of decadence plaguing their land. The fact is until Nigeria enthrones a system of meritocracy; a system where the best assumes leadership irrespective of origin, we would continue to be held down by mediocrity and would never rise up. We must insist on substance. The experience. The ability to lead a vast ship of state like Nigeria’s, surely demands more than the feeble requests of ethnicity; an able determination.Take for example our various states .They have received millions in revenue but tales of corruption come back more swiftly than development .

Consistent rioting mostly hinged on ethnicity has served to strengthen ethnic awareness in Nigeria.Infact, shortly after the return of democracy in 1999 at least 5 riots broke out within that year :Shagamu riot, Ketu/mile 12 riot,Bodija riot,Ajegunle riot and the Kano riot.Since then we have had other riots including the recent upheaval in Maiduguri which claimed hundreds of lives.

Since 1960 we have had 12 different rulers. Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, became prime minister before independence and retained power after independence till 1966. Major General Johnson Thomas Umunnakwe Aguiyi Ironsi, became the military ruler of Nigeria following the 1966 coup in which Balewa was killed.A counter coup in 1966 led to the emergence of Yakubu Gowon the chief of army staff.Gowon’s government was dethroned in 1975 by a coup that saw Brigadier General Murtala Muhammad emerge as the new military ruler. However, his reign would be short-lived. A bloody coup led to his death and Lieutenant Olusegun Obasanjo took over the reigns of power. Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s-- a minister during Nigeria's First Republic---emergence in 1976, following a general election marked the end of 13 years of military rule.

On the new year’s eve of 1983, a much appreciated coup that disposed the Shagari government -- reviled for corruption-- brought in Muhammad Buhari. However, in 1983, his chief of army staff, Ibrahim Babangida, ousted him in a bloodless coup. Babangida resigned on August 27, 1993. Chief Ernest Shonekan replaced him in a short-lived government. On November 17, 1993 General Sani Abacha, his vice president and Babaginda’s defense minister overthrew him.At the age of 54, Abacha died on June 8, 1998. General Abdulsalami Abubakar, assumed power. On May 29, 1999 former military ruler, General Olusegun Obasanjo returned to power again, breaking the chains of 15 years of military rule.Of all these, all, apart from Obasanjo ,Shonekan and Ironsi--and depending on what you believe Muritala--are Northerners.Dr.Nnamdi Azikiwe was ceremonial president from 1963 following the proclamation of republic; he was disposed in the military coup of January 15,1966. Muritala’s origin has been a subject of controversy.Some people say that he’s an Auchi man,a group found natively in today’s Edo state.So as the argument runs, Northerners should take the backseat and allow Southerners assume the reign of leadership because they have had a ‘monopoly of government.’ This argument fails to take into consideration Southerners who aided in the various governments.

Ethnic based organizations emphasize our fractured existence as a nation. At the heart of this matter is the problem that has held Nigeria down since independence. My dream Nigeria, is a place, where personality, achievement and hardwork triumph over any cheap undeserving consideration for leadership. Where the struggle for altruistic leadership outmatches any base consideration. Frequently, our news reports blare with reports of people/bodies making sectarian claims to presidency . To them, the solution lies in a figure with the same ethnicity. But I ask a question: What has indigenous rule done for us in past 7 years of democracy? You would have thought arguments for leadership would be made on the grounds of merit rather than ethnicity; but in Nigeria, you are more likely going to be seen as a fool for espousing such ‘myopic’ position.

PDP’s recent adoption of Governor Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as its presidential flag bearer has not been excluded from ethnic interpretations; imputed on the president.

Ugo Harris, Coordinator of Nigerian Democracy and Justice Project Washington, DC argues that Nigeria should begin inculcating leadership skills in our young and fostering an atmosphere based on merit in his article VACANCY FOR LEADERSHIP IN NIGERIA: ‘ We, as a nation have to start looking seriously on how to start developing and cultivating leadership qualities on the younger generation, in our schools and in our industry. Our country is doing little to develop the younger generation on the act of leadership, taking risk for Nigeria’s survival, educating the young generation against corruption, human right and human dignity lessons, respect for our laws and making every Nigerian to be proud of Nigeria by the actions of our current leaders. Leadership means so many things in so many ways in different settings or in an organization. We have to look at leadership from a lot of different angles, and the contributions people make in any organization to improve the organization and the degree of their contributions.’

Surely, the need to move towards a Nigeria, where ability reigns, should take central focus; as a way forward .The vain structuring of Nigeria on ethnic lines,North/South divide elevates mediocrities to tribal relevance.People who are caged eternally to their little fiefdoms .Different groups have lived together across ethnic lines and areas and share great tradition together but close perception blurs it.The days of selfish, nauseating, sectarian demands for governance must never factor in any way! There should be a collective, sharing of responsibility in government; where everybody holds hands. Failure and success should be partitioned in equal measure. We must probe for substance and settle for no less!

THE TRIDENT DECISION

On the front webpage of Green peace’s anti-nuclear section, stands a frail picture of a young child. Her hands straighten out across her thighs, her sunken face skewed slightly to the left side of her shoulders, her shirt tucked stridently to the her long shorts .The message is simple: it aims to spread the message of what it believes to be the evil of nuclear materials on environment and humanity.

At the age of three, Nastya from Belarus was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs in the infamous disaster in the defunct Soviet Union at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986. It spurred radioactive contamination across a wide geographic expanse including Britain. By the side of the page is an anti-nuclear triumph news: ‘Sweden closes nuclear plants over nuclear fears’.

Britain’s recent decision to acquire submarines and extend the life of its Trident missles has drawn great sighs of disappointment from people who regard it as a lost opportunity for an industrialized nation to lead the way in halting nuclear usage.
Greenpeace—which began campaigning since 1971 against environmental degradation—was one of the many voices against any attempt to increase nuclear capabilities. It holds an unforgiving stance on nuclear materials and doesn’t mince words about its effects and what it considers-- deceptions that trail it. It even barks against using nuclear power plants for electricity. It says that nuclear power stations ‘contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.’

Ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko fate after ingesting radioactive isotope polonium 210, has sparked debate about the usefulness of WMDs, consisting of radiological, bacteriological, biological and nuclear materials. The debates rages whether acquiring submarines for Trident—and extend its life—is necessary.

According the Federation of American Scientists, The Trident D5 missile is a three-stage solid-fuel rocket approximately 13 meters long, over two meters in diameter and weighing 60 tons.

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, widely believed to be the next Prime Minister has thrown his weight behind the project. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has expressed sceptism about the move. The Liberal democrats say that nuclear capability should be shed by half. The Conservatives back retaining nuclear weapons. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been a staunch vanguard for the new-generation capabilities; urging the need for independent deterrence in Britain.

Britain’s history of nuclear weaponry started in the second world war when it worked on the development of Atomic bombs under the cover name of Tube Alloys but later as a partner of American Manhattan Project .

Britain had its first nuclear weapon in 1940 and tested its first nuclear weapon on October 2,1950.Britain became a nuclear power in 1952. In total Britain has made 45 detonations. In 1968 Britain became a signatory to the NPT.It is believed to have a current nuclear stockpile of 200 warheads, a shortfall from 300 in the 1970s.

Many point to an imperilled world strewn apart by many security concerns as the reason for a strong nuclear deterrence .But the economic costs is another factor many point to. The billions spent acquiring new generation nuclear deterrence can be put to other useful purposes. The world is already choking with destructive weapons from countries like America and Russia, they say.

Faced with global counterparts like America and France keen on furthering their nuclear interests Britain may not be willing to stay out.

Many point to the deterrent advantages and the continued role Britain plays on the international stage, being militarily involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others stress the ecological aspects of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear proliferation is another grave concern for many. Allowing rogue states like Iran acquire nuclear weapons poses a grave threat to the Middle East and the wider world. Pronouncements by the Iranian ruler, urging the destruction of Israel adds great substance to these fears. America has been in the forefront of checkmating attempts to transfer WMDs to deadly hands. In the past, nuclear technology has seeped away from Pakistan to rogue elements. Pakistan’s nuclear scientist, A Q Khan tried to sell the country’s nuclear programme to Iran.

Ownership of nuclear weapons is seen as an easy route to importance on the world stage.

Some countries have acquired or were in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons but finally signed the Nuclear proliferation treaty: South Africa,Belarus,Kazakhstan,Ukraine,Australia,Austria,Argentina,Brazil,Egypt,Germany,Iraq,Japan,Libya,Poland,Romania,Sweden,Switzerland.The Republic of China(Taiwan),Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Nuclear capable states include Lithuania, Japan and Italy who generate electricity through nuclear energy and can convert to nuclear weaponry in few years.

Some say that being in the nuclear club draws a special respect from America. They point to ties America has with nuclear countries as evidence.

In the face of growing hostilities, is it really desirable to shed off nuclear capabilities? Nuclear technology can be put to useful civilian purposes like the production of electricity. In the wake of the 2005 London terrorist attacks that killed 54 people calls for increase in nuclear deterrence has gained a lot currency.

As nuclear technology becomes open to countries fears heighten about the future of the world. Last month, North Korea officially became a nuclear weapon state when it detonated a small plutonium bomb during an underground test.

The president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko said on Friday that his country plans to build a nuclear power plant to ease energy imports. Saudi Arabia has recently indicated interest in nuclear technology.

Amid a highly expected white paper on December 4, Tony Blair highlighted the need for the new submarines that would cost between £15 to £20 billion.The life of Trident missiles would also be extended to 2042. He said that it was vital for national security in the face of country involved in nuclear terrorism.

‘The government's judgment, on balance, is that though the Cold War is over, we cannot be certain in the decades ahead that a major nuclear threat to our strategic interests will not emerge; that there is also a new and potentially hazardous threat from states such as North Korea which claims already to have developed nuclear weapons or Iran which is in breach of its non-proliferation duties; that there is a possible connection between some of those states and international terrorism; that it is noteworthy that no present nuclear power is or is even considering divesting itself of its nuclear capability unilaterally; and that in these circumstances, it would be unwise and dangerous for Britain, alone of any of the nuclear powers, to give up its independent nuclear deterrent,’ Tony Blair said in parliament.

Having new-generation nuclear capability may serve as a deterrent but perhaps other pacifist routes may do. Having a strong nuclear capability may have great advantages. An Israel constantly in the throes of terrorism in the Middle East holds a lot of grounds with its nuclear arsenals as well as potential pre-emptive strikes against enemy targets or nuclear build-ups.