A little thing called ‘freedom’

As this is my final blog, it seems only appropriate to wrap up with a note on the proposed national media laws. For those not in the know, government is planning on passing the following two laws through parliament:

• The proposal of a government-run media appeals tribunal (MAT) in place of the current Press Ombudsman and Appeals Panel
• The Protection of Information Bill which will allow for information to be easily classified, and, under initial drafts, warrants a 25-year prison sentence to any journalist who exposes such information

In Noob terms, freedom of expression is under threat and the so-called transparency of our democracy is about to become that much murkier. See The Media Institute of Southern Africa for more info: http://www.misa.org/

Let us recap; in my first blog post, Evolution vs. Extinction, I discussed the difficulties of gate-keeping and regulating traditional news values online. The freedom that online journalism implies makes it increasingly difficult to monitor and regulate the hundreds upon thousands of online ‘journalists’ and ‘news posts’. How exactly does government plan to implement these new laws online? There is still currently international debate as to how to solve the gate-keeping problem online, so it seems as though a solution to monitor this new Protection of Information Bill will not be a simple and straightforward one.

In Author Unknown, I discussed the pros and cons of anonymity online with the ethical question of where we draw the line between protecting anonymity and deceiving others? Surely with these new laws in place, anonymity would have to become a thing of the past? Otherwise they would prove obsolete; if journalists cannot say it in the press, then why not publish it online under a pseudonym? Oh the irony; initially I connected anonymity with deception, but now it seems that this may be the only answer to avoiding deception by government.

It seems rather odd that despite the limitations already put on freedom of expression (see Regulating Freedom of Expression Online), that somehow there needs to be an extension of these limitations which would ultimately lead to an apartheid-like secrecy legislation- the exact opposite result of the aims of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

It all seems reminiscent of a rather recent incident involving media policing. If you read FIFA’s Freedom Farce you could very well be drawing distinctions between FIFA’s obsessive regulations and control of the media, with these proposed bills. Similar situations, but far more severe consequences: rather than a smack on the hands and being escorted out of a soccer stadium, journalists now face cuffs and a trip to the slammer- and one that may last a few decades.

And what about citizen journalism? If professional journalists are now facing a ridiculously tight tether, where does this leave the growing phenomenon of civic journalism (see Amateur Hour)? Could these community journalists face the same punishments? Will there be any room left for citizen journalism, or will it simply be a world of government-approved press where only the subservient survive? Gone is the excitement of microblogging (A case of the tweets) and other forms of social media journalism.

It all seems incredibly ridiculous to me; the new generation of journalists discuss with the horror the thought of apartheid media regulations, and the disbelief that many a journalist was jailed for acting as a pillar of truth in a country steeped in lies and deceit. Yet here we are, facing the possibility of a return of these laws and regulations, albeit perhaps more subtly phrased. Even Wikipedia knows that “freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press” are essential to a democracy. What our future seems to hold is a farewell to egalitarianism, and the arrival of fascism.