Our View: Legislating speech would endanger democracy
We do not believe attorney-general George Savvides wants to curtail free speech, the most fundamental principle of a democracy, but the idea he put forward on Tuesday about legislation restricting what is written on social media would come very close to doing so. While the desire to restrict the abuse of the right to freedom of expression on social media is understandable, to an extent, it is still a very dangerous path to follow, because it could, eventually, threaten our democracy. Where would legislation draw the line?
In his speech at the conference on the subject of ‘Historical development, prospects and challenges for the institution of the attorney-general,’ Savvides spoke about the very serious impact of social media, as the prestige and standing of institutions was shaped by the internet and often by people who have no access to the facts or lack legal knowledge. The contrived presentation and misinformation, he said, “were amplified through the reproduction by secret and known accounts on social media that aim at the distortion of truth for the serving of their own interests.”
It is true that social media have become platforms for fake news, misinformation, distortion of facts, intellectual intimidation and bullying. It is also true that the more outrageous the comments and claims posted are, the more interest and attention they attract. From what Savvides said it would appear that his main intention is to protect institutions from people with political agendas and other interests rather than deal with all social media comments via legislation. The “calculated undermining of institutions destroys democracy and is not protected by the right of freedom of expression,” he said.
What constitutes undermining of institutions? If someone mocks the presidency or claims that a judge issued an appalling ruling or criticises the way the attorney-general prosecuted a case or lambasts the poor policing at a football match on social media, would he be charged? Would lampooning politicians and other state officials or government decisions, which have a very long tradition in healthy democracies, be a violation of the law that the AG proposes to put in place? Would undermining in newspapers and on television be permitted because they are not classed as social media?
In mature democracies like the United States and Britain the criticism and ridiculing of authority figures and institutions is often vicious and merciless, but it has always been tolerated. In the UK the new political thinking, which prohibits offensive comments, has made hate speech, also known as incitement to hatred, a criminal offence, and this legislation has been seen to be eroding free speech, to such an extent that campaign groups have been set up to defend this democratic right. Cyprus also has such legislation, but, fortunately, because there is not much pressure, it has not been very rigorously enforced by police.
Tuesday’s speech by the AG did not spark much resistance from organised groups and parties, which in itself is rather worrying. Ironically, the only party that took a strong stance against these plans was Akel, which for decades championed socialist states that outlawed free speech and sent people who questioned authority to labour camps. A former president of the Bar Association also expressed objections, but other than that, there has been no public debate about this very serious issue.
To be fair, Savvides has not tried to impose his view but has asked the House of representatives to explore the matter before proceeding with legislation to protect the institutions. We doubt the parties will heed the advice and draft legislation. Even if legislation was prepared by the Law Office of the Republic it is difficult to see many deputies supporting a bill that will essentially curtail a fundamental democratic right, a right that sets apart the West from the rest of the world.
Perhaps the AG has some justification in wanting to protect institutions, given the unrelenting attacks and debunking some – including his own – have suffered in recent years, but enacting legislation for this purpose is not the answer. Once there are laws restricting free speech on certain issues, there is no guarantee that these, eventually would not be expanded to other topics. And the risk is that when this happens nobody would be allowed to speak out against it because undermining or disputing the decisions of institutions would be a criminal offence.