The government yesterday approved the much-talked-about draft of the ‘Digital Security Act-2018’ incorporating certain provisions of the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act. In the face of widespread criticism from different quarters, the government abolished Section 57 of the ICT Act, but it remains in the Digital Security Act in a different form with the ‘crimes and punishments’ defined. According to Section 57 of the ICT Act, if a person deliberately publishes any material in the electronic form that causes deterioration of law and order, prejudices the image of the state or person or hurts religious beliefs, the offender will be punished with a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of seven years of imprisonment. It also suggested that the crime is non-bailable. But, the draft of the Digital Security Act shows that the crimes as defined by the Section 57 has been divided and kept separately in some sections (The Independent, January 2, 2018)..Independent media delivers truth and accountability
Access to information is essential for the realisation of the civil and political rights of all citizens of Bangladesh
Dr Mohammed Abul Kalam
The government yesterday approved the much-talked-about draft of the Digital Security Act-2018 incorporating certain provisions of the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act. In the face of widespread criticism from different quarters, the government abolished Section 57 of the ICT Act, but it remains in the Digital Security Act in a different form with the crimes and punishments defined. According to Section 57 of the ICT Act, if a person deliberately publishes any material in the electronic form that causes deterioration of law and order, prejudices the image of the state or person or hurts religious beliefs, the offender will be punished with a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of seven years of imprisonment. It also suggested that the crime is non-bailable. But, the draft of the Digital Security Act shows that the crimes as defined by the Section 57 has been divided and kept separately in some sections (The Independent, January 2, 2018)..
Diplomats from 10 countries and the European Union (EU) yesterday expressed their concern over four sections of the proposed digital security act, reports UNB. They expressed concern over sections, 21, 28, 32 and 25 of the proposed act and we presented our opinion. Further discussions will be held as well meet again soon, said Law Minister Anisul Huq after a meeting with the diplomats at the secretariat. Anisul Huq assured them that they will look into the matter and talk to the authorities concerned. The 10 countries are Germany, Sweden, the USA, Denmark, France, Canada, the UK, Spain, Norway and Switzerland. While responding to a question from reporters about appointment of Lord Carlile as Khaledas lawyer, he said, Its very deplorable as the lawyer also worked for war criminals. (The Independent, 26 March 2018).
In my write-up, Section 57 of the ICT Act versus public interest journalism, (The Independent, November 27, 2017), I expressed my concern as The Genie is out of the bottle. It may be impossible to put it back. There is a lesson in that for all immature democracies. When they think aloud about interfering with basic good governance concepts such as press freedom, they give those dark thoughts life in equally dark places. An informed citizenry is necessary for a democracy to be truly representative, responsive and open. Without a knowledge base of information that is in the public interest, citizens will be incapable of making decisions that strengthen Bangladeshs democracy. And the right balance for transparency will help to secure the publics right to know and lay the groundwork for a broader revitalization of participatory democracy in Bangladesh. But, even if the some of the sub-sections are dropped, that might not be the end of the story. It does not follow that the government who is watching this with exciting interest will walk away.
Again, I shall try to clarify some of the notions and some of the framework conditions which we should take into account as we proceed to discuss the questions raised now a day for the Controversial Section 32 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act.
It is Constitutional Right. Our Father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman knew how important freedom of speech was. So he was very keen to incorporate freedom of speech in The Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. Freedom of thought and conscience, and of speech: 39. (1) Freedom of thought and conscience is guaranteed.(2) Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence (a) the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression; and (b) freedom of the press, are guaranteed. To limit freedom of speech on the internet would be ludicrous. Nowadays most of the literature we read is read via the internet no actual books or magazines, newspapers, thus if freedom of speech is limited on the internet we risk becoming a socialistic society.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech or of the press... Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression. The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individuals religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Access to information is essential for the realization of the civil and political rights of all citizens of Bangladesh. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Moreover, the right to access to information underpins two sections of Article 21: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country (Section 1) and, The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Section 2).
If they had known: Yes, our founding father DID know how important the freedom of speech was. But he had no way of knowing the world would be the way it is today, with cell phones in every persons pocket and a computer in every home. People are using the internet to blackmail people, steal identities and money, and just threaten in general. Im sure that when they wrote the constitution they did not have todays modern world in mind.
As a medical sociologist and research ethicist, I propose to keep journalists to be on safe side, the government may commission licensing body to protect/regulate journalists As we regulate doctors to protect the public from harm - why not journalists?
Should journalists be licensed? In the post-truth haze that has enveloped public discourse, a free press is more crucial than ever in educating the public and holding leaders to account. Reliable, accurate news is an essential public good, while false or misleading news can foment confusion and distrust.
In this regard, the practice of journalism has much in common with the practice of medicine. The best medical practice can enhance the publics health, while careless treatment can lead to real harms. One of these professions is tightly regulated. The other is practised without any formal systems of oversight.
Doctors are granted a licence to practise medicine by a medical board, or a college of physicians. Licensure typically requires proof of completion of medical school, as well as passing a series of examinations, and payment of an annual fee. Many physicians are additionally registered with other professional bodies that require evidence of continuing medical education, to better ensure that practitioners stay current in their fields.
BMDC establish clear rules and guidelines about how, in general terms; a physicians practice should be carried out. Clear policies govern the professional standards that must be met, as well as how investigations and disciplinary actions are to be brought forth in the event of a suspected violation.
Certain types of misconduct be it a failure to maintain the standards of the profession, disgraceful behaviour, abuse of a position of authority, or other misdeeds can land a physician before a disciplinary committee with the power to revoke their licence if they are indeed found guilty of malfeasance.
Medical boards serve the public, providing mechanisms through which patients can lodge complaints about physicians. They also serve physicians, who use credentialing to demonstrate good standing.
The potential parallels with journalism are easy to spot. The media fulfills an essential role in public life. Anyone writing and publishing news stories is given a potentially powerful voice. While our hope is that journalists will use their voice to reliably inform the public, we must also recognize their potential to lead people astray.
Anyone can now report on a story: Our current media ecosystem presents a far different picture. The internet has given voice to anyone wishing to report on a story, enabling shoddy research based on secondary sources (or even pure fantasy). It has become possible to publish at the push of a button, at any time of day. The upside now includes an influx of cash from clicks and page views; being provocative may be more profitable than being correct. As a consequence, the lines between news and entertainment are now blurred. Consumers of news are adrift in a sea of stories, left to disambiguate the fake news from the real thing.
This state of affairs constitutes a threat to the public good. This state of affairs in which a profession has a duty to protect the public but the means to do harm underscores the need for a journalism licensing body.
A college of journalists would in no way infringe upon free speech or freedom of the press, much as a medical board does not preclude patients from seeking treatment from complementary and alternative sources.
In fact, seeking health treatments or news stories outside the mainstream may in many cases be a safe and reasonable thing to do. The difference is that the consumer becomes better informed about their choices, and practitioners cant as easily claim to provide a service they arent qualified to deliver. Physicians inhabit a unique place of trust in society, conferred at least in part by the recognition that their practice is regulated, and that those operating outside of accepted bounds face consequences. Trust in journalists is no less important, but increasingly scarce these days. While the licensing of journalists may do little to stem the tide of fake news, it might at least make it easier to call it out for what it is.
Conclusion: We want to see journalists to serve democracy and the public interest by reporting the truth. This sometimes conflicts with various public and private interests, including those of sources, governments, advertisers and, on occasion, with our duty and obligation to an employer. And defending the publics interest includes promoting the free flow of information, exposing crime or wrongdoing, protecting public health and safety, and preventing the public from being misled. When the government censors certain unallowable opinions, and at the same times pretends to protect freedom of speech, it is essentially saying you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you dont say this. This is the same principle that exists in even the most totalitarian societies; saying that that society has free speech becomes meaningless.
And we will continue to do so because we believe that access to information is the key to the truth. We encourage you to read as much as possible and discuss widely the issues on the table.
Challenge yourselves and challenge each other, and in that way we will come to identify the real limits to our freedom and democracy and thereby determine the course of action that is right for us. It is time to seek out the truth and engage in responsible decision-making.
The writer is former Head, Department of Medical Sociology
Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control Research (IEDCR)
Dhaka, Bangladesh
E-mail: [email protected]
