Journalists should stop cheap Facebook fame and do their job of free speech campaign
By Biar John
This piece will begin by defining freedom of expression. There is no freedom of expression in South Sudan, so the elaboration will be on the importance and limits of freedom of expression, and the balance that should be created to make it exits, to allow free debate on issue affecting everyone in South Sudan. Freedom of expression as applied in this article includes ‘freedom of press.’ The article will conclude by lambasting journalists for trivializing their roles and responsibilities for Facebook popularity hunt which ends in nothing but squabbles between they and their fans.
According to the online business dictionary, freedom of expression refers to the right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication and without deliberately causing harm to others’ character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements, and without government’s interference while it is being practiced. Thus, free speech would be speech that creates a positive, and not negative, scenario in both long-terms and short-terms in a society.
Throughout the history of the democratic societies such the USA, it has been the ability to freely express ideas that has led to progress according to Yale University Journal of law and humanities. In the context of south Sudan, the ability to allow a voice for ones’ own ideas as well as access the ideas of others should be one which provides multiethnic societies with the ability to interact freely and move forward.
The corruptors’ fear that ‘offensive’ ideas will necessarily spread if given a voice is a conclusion which does not follow from its premise. Allowing for free expression also allows for free debates. As a result, when an idea emerges, that is deemed morally repugnant it should not be censored but, instead, allowed a voice. We then rationally debate these ideas and those that have no rational foundation are quickly treated unworthy; dismissed and we all then understand why that view should not be held.
With varying tribal groups in south Sudan there are varying opinions and beliefs; our societies need to have unlimited freedom of expression to be able to say any and everything regarding themselves as well as other groups in order to mitigate the previous and current situation of war.
The country requires less protection of public figures regarding their political reputation in order to encourage free public debate. There should be open forum for debates in all 10 states so that citizens take part in the conduct of public affairs through dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves.
It is very understandable that there are limits to freedom of expression. In every other country of the world, governments may be obliged to put restrictions on their citizens’ freedom of expression in time of instability. For instance, during times of rioting or civil unrest the government may place restrictions on freedom of expression in order to constrain violence. This may be for the safety of the people but it may also be justifiable to limit freedoms of some individuals, if they are politically disintegrating, in order to preserve the political system that is in place.
The best example of this justifiable limitation to freedom was seen in the recent killing of a black teenager by the name Michael Brown in the USA. On hearing the death, the public started a protest which became a riot, and eventually gave into property damage, looting, and killings. The government of the state responded heavy-handedly by sending in the army when the police could not handle the situation properly.
In countries like UK, Australia, US, and more, the limits of freedom of expression are intertwined together with public safety, societal, and governmental stability. Always the safety citizens come first. Individual’s freedoms and rights sometimes conflict so someone’s must be limited. By limiting certain rights in the society ensures that everyone has access to the same rights. For that matter, the right to freedom of expression can be limited if that freedom is being used to constrain another’s freedom as a result of attacks upon them.
But how far the limits of free expression should go is politically unclear. If the argument is that any ideas should always be given a voice then it becomes increasingly difficult to also argue for placing limits on free expression as we are simply trying to find a reasonable ground to discount that voice. The preservation of an existing political system is, in itself, not enough to warrant the imposition of limits to expression.
Should the argument then be that governments must work towards a society of complete freedom of expression? While this might be desirable in most democratic societies, it does not deal with issues of social order and safety which arise from the ability to freely express one’s own ideas. Often there are instances in which one person’s right to free expression leads to another person’s reputation or safety being jeopardized. Governments are therefore needed sometimes to decide in what few instances freedom of expression must be reduced in order to save lives and keep us safe from defamations.
The limits to freedom of speech in south Sudan is not by law but at the whim of public officials; this is where the problem arise between the government and citizens. The law and regulation that is formally recognized is not appropriately applied by those entrusted with law making.
Ordinary south Sudanese citizens lack legal ways to deal with pressing matters in their hands; they mostly left to their own whims and instincts when deciding what is and what is not morally and politically acceptable in the society. And it is here that it becomes a stuff of the journalists and their journalism. It is their job to keep the government in check through constant scrutiny and exposure.
One of the principles of journalism is that it must serve as an independent monitor of power. Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affects citizens. This therefore means journalists have the obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for other purposes, but rather use it in exposing to the public all the cover ups of government’s officials.
South Sudan is a democratic country and freedom of speech is very important for the going forward. It should be done without any interference from individuals and governments as long as the debates are politically safe and democratically connected. But the claim of being democratic is just in words, and in a number of times debating issues openly has turned fatal.
The case in point is being the recent debate on federalism and the recent shooting to death of debaters in Yei. In such situations, journalists are forced to shy away from their duties, fearing they could face the same fate.
Since everything is debatable, the balance between issues that are debatable and those that are not has grown thin or has disappeared.
Striking the balance is a matter of great importance for both the citizens and the government. Where the line is drawn between the stuff that are debatable and those that are not, is crucial for the future of the South Sudanese societies. In reality, the point of free speech is supposed to be for the political stuff that the tyrannical government claims to be over the line.
For that reasons, it is journalists’ responsibility to try the hardest, with vigilant, to find and expose anything being hidden despite the risks, while making sure they give some acknowledgment whenever the government has done well. This will render the government to not see them as mere agents of destabilization, but rather as adjudicators between itself and the public. This could lead the impulsive and paranoid bureaucrats to create a ground for compromise and citizens would be able to debate certain issues without fear of repercussions.
Debating issues has always been dangerous in South Sudan. It is widely known what became of Isaiah Abraham. So momentarily, every journalist is scared for their lives. Fear has reduced everyone to just a cheap Facebook fans collector for celebrity hood. While some of the young prominent journalist have become pseudo – commentators for English premier leagues; others hunt their fame in different other ways including challenging the whimsical officials behind there.
Since most journalistic work intended for the public officials is behind social media, which most of them do not even know what it really is; the government is feeling no pressure on matters of public concern. To make them feel pressure there need to be use of the main stream media like newspapers in Juba, especially.
Being Facebook fame hunters, some journalists tend to interchange issues regarding government misdeeds with oral defamation, slander, and comments on individuals of no political significance. This is to the disregards principles of journalisms, so to say. In fact, a few journalists known to the author have been caught up in wrangles with average citizens on Facebook and other social networks because of a behavior some fans claim be patronizing attitudes. This is a total loss of direction.
It is our desire, as citizens, to debate politics and those who make it that drives us to verbally grind Salva Kiir and Riek on daily bases in social media. They are our punching bags; they represent the demise of the hope of a generation; we are entitled to talking about them, disparagingly, whenever we want. This is where should always begin and stop.
But unfortunately, the 100s ‘likes’ these lost journalists get when they post their work blind them into thinking they are now famous enough to advance their ill journalistic skills on ordinary figures, who may have varied with them in opinion.
The way it seems, all it needs to think you are a feared journalist now a days is a Facebook account with 100s of fans, who you entertain with parodies about Salva Kiir, and a couple of plays on addressing critical letters to minsters posted on your wall. You can then pretend you are the next Isaiah Abraham, and you dangle to Kampal or Nairobi, where you stay by choice, while trying to look to your fans like you are hiding from authorities for being a political risk because of being a vocal critic.
With that being the situation, the line between the so called ‘exposing the corrupt in the government and defaming’ someone ordinary for the advantage of being a journalist disappears. But ultimately, the main victim for pettiness or the loss of direction is the campaign for freedom of expression.
It is your desire to bring change that we chose journalism as career. We did so in oder to be the eyes of the south Sudanese communities being held hostage by the bunch. So, we need to apply journalism with intentness, not triviality.
About Post Author
