Defamation And Freedom Of Expression
PHOTO; The Author
February 17, 2025
Mwalimu-Koh Moses Blonkanjay Jackson (MsEd, EdM)
Education Engineer, Critical Thinker, Author
Thinking Thoughts
In my Thinking Thoughts, I reflected on the circumstances behind Justin Oldpa Yeazen’s incarceration and the public’s response. Two questions that surged into my medulla oblongata were: Is this action against a means of finally shutting down the cussing prophet? Is it a warning to wide-mouth, untrained, and uncouth elements in high and low positions in our society who, without remorse, spew profanity as if morals have escaped our upbringing? Oh, how I wish the answer to the two questions were “Yes”.
Admittedly, the recent jailing of self-styled Prophet Key has reopened a long-simmering national debate about the boundary between freedom of expression, disorderly conduct, and defamation in present-day Liberia. His imprisonment followed the spewing of invectives against the mother of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and public accusations of corruption against the Chief Justice himself, acts that many observers argue crossed the line from protected speech into conduct injurious to public order and decency.
Constructs of a Foreword and an Epilogue
For the sake of my real brabbees. A foreword, on the one hand, is a conceptual opening, signals intention, direction, and what is to come. In literature and public discourse alike, a foreword frames the narrative and prepares the reader for a sustained engagement with the subject. Applied metaphorically to governance and law enforcement, a foreword represents the beginning of a pattern: an early signal that standards are being set, norms clarified, and future actions will follow consistently. When an event functions as a foreword, it is not important merely for what happens in that single moment, but for the precedent it establishes and the continuity it promises.
On the other hand, an epilogue, by contrast, marks closure. It is reflective rather than anticipatory, summarizing consequences without necessarily opening a new path. As a construct, an epilogue suggests finality, an ending to a particular episode without assurance of broader change. In public affairs, an action that functions as an epilogue may resolve one case or quiet one disturbance, yet leave underlying behaviors, attitudes, and systemic issues intact. The difference between a foreword and an epilogue, therefore, lies in whether an act inaugurates reform or merely concludes an isolated chapter.
Harm of Spewing Invectives to Society
The habitual spewing of invectives in public spaces and on social media inflicts serious harm on society by corroding the norms of respectful dialogue and civic engagement. When insults, threats, and abusive language become normalized, reasoned debate gives way to hostility and fear. This weakens democratic culture, discourages thoughtful participation, and replaces persuasion with intimidation. Over time, such conduct lowers the threshold of acceptable behavior, making extremism, disrespect for authority, and social fragmentation appear ordinary rather than aberrant.
Beyond cultural damage, invective-driven discourse poses concrete risks to public order and national cohesion. Persistent verbal abuse against public officials, institutions, or private individuals can inflame tensions, provoke retaliation, and incite violence. It also undermines trust in governance and the justice system, as allegations, often unsubstantiated, are presented as fact and amplified to large audiences. In this way, unchecked invective does not merely offend sensibilities; it endangers social stability, erodes mutual respect, and threatens the collective peace on which society depends.
Construct of Disorderly Conduct
Under Liberia law, disorderly conduct refers to behavior that disturbs public peace, order, or decency in a public place. It focuses on immediate disruptive actions rather than long-term harm or injury to reputation. Acts such as shouting abusive or obscene language, engaging in fighting, provoking violence, making unreasonable noise, or behaving in a manner likely to alarm or annoy others in public may amount to disorderly conduct. The key consideration is whether the behavior interferes with the public’s right to peace and safety at that moment.
Disorderly conduct is typically treated as a minor criminal offense, but it plays an important role in maintaining social order. It is prosecuted by the state through law-enforcement authorities, often based on what police officers observe or what is reported by members of the public. Unlike defamation, it does not require proof of false statements or reputational harm, and unlike public nuisance, it does not require widespread or prolonged impact. The aim is preventive, to stop disturbances before they escalate into violence or broader public disorder, with penalties usually including fines, short-term detention, or other corrective measures ordered by the court.
Construct of Defamation
Defamation is person-centered, not society centered. It concerns false statements presented as facts that damage someone’s reputation. Under Liberian law, truth is a defense, and harm must be shown. Even harsh or offensive speech does not amount to defamation unless it is false and injurious. Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Beyond the individual case, the episode has revived uncomfortable questions about a broader culture of verbal aggression, threats, and indiscipline that has taken root in public discourse, both offline and online. For example, a sitting representative and a former representative, both of whom are members of the Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), have proven to be notorious nuisances to the serenity and sanity of the public space. One is always laying threats to the peace of the government, while the other spews invectives at the President, defies the authority of the President and his cabinet, especially with impunity. So far, though.
This pattern, critics note, did not emerge overnight. Over the six years of the former administration, an audacity for rudeness and indiscipline appeared to normalize itself in Liberia’s civic space. Increasingly, even university students, young people expected to be preparing intellectually and professionally for the nation’s future, have taken to the streets and social media to issue threats against the government over minor grievances.
In that sense, the Prophet Key episode may mark a turning point. If the state’s action signals a broader, consistent enforcement of laws against disorderly conduct and public nuisance, without fear or favor, it could be read as the foreword to a new chapter of civic discipline and responsibility. If, however, it proves to be an isolated act aimed only at ending one individual’s excesses, it may stand merely as an epilogue, a brief closing note that leaves the deeper culture of indiscipline untouched. The significance of this moment, therefore, lies less in one man’s imprisonment and more in what follows.
To those ends, the public needs to act and ignite discussion and legal actions, similar to the Chief Justice’s, against those who have found comfort and relevance in contaminating the minds of our young people through the expression of their blind loyalty to their deities. The need to purge our society of other Prophet Keys is dire and cannot be overemphasized.
Simply Thinking Thought
About the author
The Rivercess scholar, critical thinker, and founder of the Diversified Educators Empowerment Project (DEEP), Mwalimu-Koh M. Blonkanjay Jackson holds a Master of Education from Harvard, and Master of Science in Mathematics Education from St. Joseph’s University; he is a Yale University Teachers Initiative Math Fellow and UPENN Teacher Institute Physics Fellow. Mr. Jackson served the government of Liberia diligently for four years and returned to private practice as Development Specialist and Education Engineer. The Mwalimu-Koh can be reached at 0886 681 315.