How freedom with minimal social control fans Kenya’s digital hatred

The Internet has revolutionised the way people communicate through e-mail, chat rooms, electronic messaging and instant information access. Although there is no known country that has prosecuted social media crimes, a number of countries have come up with measures to curb some vices promoted on the Net. Kenya, however, is still grappling in the dark as the monster of hatred spreads its tentacles

It had always been hailed as a game-changer in the world of communication, an inception that would truly make the earth a global village. But now the growth of the Internet, and alongside it social media networks, is quickly becoming a pain in the collective neck of governments.

Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, You Tube and Instagram are attracting millions of users globally daily, but, as they draw the crowds, they are also harassing the security apparatus of governments, who have to be on their toes to police the Net.

A few weeks ago, for instance, Thailand blocked Facebook access within its borders over what it claimed were national security concerns, locking out at least 30 million people from using the world’s most popular social networking site.

Although Thailand’s military alter issued a statement denying claims that they had blocked the site — they said a technical error had interfered with the site — the inaccessibility of Facebook across the country was widely seen as a deliberate way of silencing the millions of Thais who might use it to incite and instigate violence or political division, or pose a threat to national security.

The Thai military had previously imposed censorship on the mass media by blocking access to foreign television networks and restricting what home networks could broadcast. Various websites had also been shut in the crackdown, so it was only natural that the authorities would be blamed for trying to curtail freedom of expression when Facebook went down.

In Kenya, Moses Kuria, a political activist, had his Facebook account shut down for allegedly misusing it, soon after the Law Society of Kenya sought for his prosecution for a post that was deemed as hate speech.

“They have shut down my Facebook account,” Kuria posted on his Twitter account. “They can do that, but they will not shut down my resolve. I will be back!”

In Kenya, Twitter and Facebook are the most commonly used social media sites. In 2008, Facebook had 100 million users countrywide, but, to indicate the massive popularity of the site, as of March 2013, the site had 1.1 billion regular users worldwide. Twitter, on the other hand, had a user following of slightly more than 500 million.

TURNING TO SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media fanatic Denis Itumbi, who is the Director of Digital Media and Diaspora Communications in the Office of the President, and who is believed to have landed the directorship because of, among others, his immense online activity and following, says nearly all Kenyan youth, corporate companies and even government offices are turning to social media to drive their agendas.

However, as people log on, there is always a real danger of having some crackpots online, which, for Kenya’s highly ethnicised society, is a major worry for policy makers and security experts.

In the recent past, some users have been accused of using social media platforms to spread “hate speech”, a term that became widely used after the 2007-8 post-election violence.

But it is not all hate and doom for Kenyans on the blogosphere. As technology grows and becomes more pervasive, so does the creativity of the millions of Kenyans online. The best example of how this creativity is used to ventilate can be found in the vociferous Twitter hashtag #KOT (Kenyans On Twitter) and the many #SomeoneTell... tags that have become the rage of late.

Consider, also, the buzz created by the hashtag #BabaWhileYouWereAway, started by a political activist to coincide with the return of Cord leader Raila Odinga to the country after nearly three months in the US; or how the “your name betrays you” remark by former Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka in April — about a journalist’s ethnic background and how it affected his questioning a press conference — drew furious reactions via #SomeoneTellKalonzoMusyoka.

Social media, then, has become more than a platform for social interactions, and #KOT are the best example of this. But on Facebook, where discussions can have a lengthy thread and posts are not restricted by the 140 characters on Twitter, the story tends to get a little bit unnverving as posts teeter on the edge of ethnic incitement.

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) tried to end the mischief by asking the directorate of public prosecutions to step in and punish the culprits, but social media platforms are designed to offer some veil of anonymity, which makes them hard to police. And so, by the time Mzalendo Kibunjia’s outfit ran out of steam, only a few people has been prosecuted over their actions online.

In an interview with DN2, LSK chairman Eric Mutua said that everyone has a right to self-expression under the Constitution, and that as long as an individual’s posts are not slanderous, insulting and avoid incitement, one is free to express oneself on whatever platform of communication.

However, Mutua says that the government has no capabilities of shutting down an individual’s social media account, but cautions that if the individual is regarded as a threat to the country’s security, the account administrators can be advised to shut down his or her account.

Bloggers, activists and other social media users are at liberty to express themselves in whichever way they perceive appropriate, says Mutua. But, while social media has been used to rectify and warn the government of some misgivings, the law society chair says activism does not mean hurling insults or maligning other communities.

“Social media should be used for positive effects,” says the lawyer. “When activists on the Internet use their blogs or social media sites to break the unity of the country”, they do a great disservice to the nation, and should be rounded up and prosecuted.

Political interests have been pointed to be a hindrance to social media policing, and Mutua agrees, saying “most, if not all, social media activists are often affiliated to politicians who assure them of their protection” and that “this kind of interference prevents any successful investigations to be done on culprits”.

Though no article, as stipulated in the Constitution, can be used to regulate the social media landscape, Mutua advises that the right personnel — people who are well-versed in information and technology — should be incorporated in the fight against digital hate speech and neo-terrorism.

“There are people who spread hate speech or commit other felonies using fake accounts through these platforms. The only way to apprehend such criminals is by getting experts who can track them,” says Mutua.

IGNORED TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Itumbi, on the other hand, says that policing the social world may be difficult due to lack of laws that govern the same platform, but quickly points out that hate speech and other social crimes on these sites should not be left unaddressed.

Responding to the allegations by Kuria that the government suspended his account, Itumbi sats that many social media users often ignore the terms and conditions included on the sites they use, and that these terms are “pegged on the social media pages that many Kenyans ignore when opening an account”.

“Once they defy any of the rules,” says Itumbi, “their accounts are bound to be suspended. However, the government can request the administrators of these interactive platforms to suspend an individual’s account if they are deemed as threats to the nation.”

The Internet has revolutionised the way people communicate through e-mail, chat rooms, electronic messaging and instant information access. Although there is no known country that has prosecuted social media crimes, a number of countries have come up with measures to curb some vices promoted on social media.

In Australia, for instance, a child internet policing unit was set up to censor activities that are considered detrimental to children, including child sex offenders and child pornography.

As the country looks for ways to fight the monster online, the booger keeps extending its tentacles and ensaring many more others. The damage is growing in size and consequences. So, what needs to be done?

“The fact that no known country has prosecuted social media felonies doesn’t mean that Kenya cannot prosecute such crimes,” says Mutua, while Itumbi warns that the business of curbing hate speech should not be left to the government solely, and that “it has to be done by every Kenyan”.

“The moment you desist from commenting on an ethnicised update,” says Itumbi, “you are already lending a hand in policing social media.”

WHAT THE LAW SAYS:

National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008:

Section 62 (1): (1) Any person who utters words intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.

Section 62 (2): A newspaper, radio station or media enterprise that publishes the utterances referred to in subsection (1) commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings.

Information and Communications (Amendment) Act 2013:

Section 5B (4): The right to freedom of expression shall not extend to:

(a) The spread of propaganda for war;

(b) Incitement to violence;

(c) The spread of hate speech; or

(d) Advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others persons or community or incitement to cause harm; or is based on any ground of discrimination.

FYI

According to a study titled Corporate Responses to Hate Speech in the 2013 Kenya Presidential Elections — by the Institute of Human Rights and Business — it is difficult to give accurate statistics on the content and number of SMSs inciting violence that were circulated during the 2007/2008 elections in Kenya because there is very little existing data from the period in the public domain.

“One reason is that after the post-election violence, people were cautious about giving information regarding inciting messages they may have received or saved, for fear of implicating themselves in incitement to violence,” says the report. “Even some of those working in human rights organisations deleted such SMSs from their mobile phones because the content was considered so toxic. It is not known how widely these messages were disseminated.”