Choices to be made

At the Arab League-sponsored international conference on the role of the media in combating terrorism and extremism, held in Amman, the government reiterated its long-standing position on the use of social media or the Internet to deliver hate speeches or preach terrorism or extremism, which is one of total rejection.

That the government should declare its opposition to the use of the Internet or social media to spread sedition, hatred or takfiri thought is no surprise.

It is a stance well enshrined in all international human rights treaties, taken for granted by all nations.

The issue, therefore, is not so much declaring one’s position against spreading dangerous propaganda or seditious ideas, through any medium, but rather how to prevent that from happening, particularly now when “freedom of expression” is being abused by some to advance their agendas.

Controlling the Internet and social media may have to be introduced at some point in time, but any such censorship would be highly controversial.

Government intervention in this minefield must therefore be delicately pursued and in accordance with strict supervision, lest it should become a tool that muzzles legitimate expression of thought or violates one’s privacy.

At a time technology-savvy people come up with the most astonishing, or outlandish, inventions, it is difficult to believe that there is no way pernicious messages cannot be weeded out without infringing on citizens’ freedom of expression.

Yet, one understands that no country wants to solve a crisis by creating another.

This is where common sense would play a critical role in finding the sought-after middle ground.

The rule of law and human rights standards must be relied on if the right formula for supervising the Internet and social media is to be found.

That said, a poll might be conducted among citizens, asking for their preference when choosing between security and freedom to post any thought on social media.