iREP 2024: What are the Boundaries of Free Speech?
Stories by Vanessa Obioha
The recent defamation suits filed by Nigerian creatives Davido and Nathaniel Bassey separately over harmful information about their reputation spread via social media brings to the fore one of the crucial discussions held at the 14th edition of i-Represent International Documentary Film Festival (iREP).
These incidents, occurring in the aftermath of iREP 2024, serve as poignant examples of the challenges posed by fake news and disinformation in today’s media landscape.
Davido, the Nigerian music superstar, was falsely reported by a Kenyan media outlet on April Fool’s Day to have been arrested in Kenya for drug possession. Although declared a prank, Davido considered it ‘extremely irresponsible’ and vowed legal action against the media company.
Similarly, Bassey faced baseless allegations on social media, with individuals spreading false claims regarding his personal life. A post on X alleged that he fathered the child of his colleague, the gospel singer Mercy Chinwo. In his petition, his legal team emphasized the malicious intent behind such defamatory posts.
The discussions at iREP 2024 revolved around the theme of ‘Disinformation and Misinformation: The Media in the Age of Discontent.’ The distinguished panel, comprising former Nigerian minister of information and culture, Lai Mohammed; broadcast journalist, Anikeade Funke-Treasure; political economist and columnist, Prof. Anthony Kila; anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, Jean-Paul Colleyn; and lawyer and media archivist, Nze Ed Keazor, tackled the complex interplay between fake news and free speech, asking key questions such as should speech be impeded as a way of mitigating the harmful spread of fake news? What is the place of traditional media in the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation? What imminent threats does fake news pose to democracy?
The panellists offered diverse perspectives on the matter, advocating for measures such as media literacy, critical analysis, and responsible regulation of social media platforms.
Drawing from personal experiences, Mohammed queried if there was a unique age of discontent. “Or simply a case of technology enabling the manifestation of discontent through the democratization of speech, perspectives and views?”
In his argument, he pointed out that perennial tension between citizens and the government has been constant throughout history, given that issues like economic strife and insecurity exist. However, he stressed the broader impact of fake news beyond governmental spheres, noting how it can detrimentally affect communities, sharing a personal anecdote on how false information about his wealth nearly caused irreparable harm to his marriage.
He, therefore, advocated for the regulation of social media platforms and other intermediaries, emphasizing the need for accountability in their role in amplifying disinformation and misinformation, while noting that such regulation should not be “misconstrued as an attempt to stifle freedom of expression or censor dissenting voices. Rather, it should be viewed as a necessary step to ensure that these platforms operate in a manner that is responsible, ethical, and conducive to the well-being of society.”
While Kila did not align with the minister’s stance on banning or regulating social media, he advocated for a nuanced approach that prioritizes media literacy and critical thinking. But to do this, he argued, there was a need to reassess information as a form of social interaction and an essential tool for humanity. This, he said, calls for an understanding of the contemporary landscape shaped by technology and relativism, calling for measures such as indexing to combat misinformation effectively.
For Funke-Treasure, the political economy of the media is a contributory factor to the prevalence of disinformation and misinformation.
“If the owner of a media organisation belongs to a particular tribe, he can further the narrative that is anti-nation and has all the resources to do that. The people who work for him, I believe, can also shift into that narrative that they want to peddle.”
Colleyn looked at the topic from the lens of fiction and non-fiction and the intent behind it. He however stressed that critical theory and capacity of analysis is more important than ever, in understanding unintentional fictions and deconstructing social norms.
Colleyn approached the topic through the lens of fiction and non-fiction, considering the underlying intent behind both. He noted the heightened significance of critical theory and analytical capacity in today’s context, particularly in understanding unintentional fiction and deconstructing social norms.
Keazor raised a crucial question during the panel discussion, regarding the boundaries of free speech in the context of misinformation and disinformation. While acknowledging that such phenomena are not entirely new, given existing defamation laws, Keazor highlighted the evolving nature of communication platforms. He referenced a statement made by Elon Musk, the new owner of the X platform: What are the boundaries of free speech?
“Because even if it is misinformation, it should be allowed, it’s free speech. But I don’t think he’s ever said that you have no right to seek legal action or to counter something done that injures or has injurious effects on society.”
His submission therefore was that a balance between regulating social media platforms and rights of free speech should be sought but with adept management, “because the future of society is dependent on the ability to express and convey information without fear.”
