By Sherman Seequeh
The Press Union of Liberia (PUL) was not the first to hammer the nail down. A few months earlier, the pollution of Liberia’s airwaves—the abuse of free speech, the deliberate violation of public nuisance law and the flagrant disregard for journalistic codes—compelled the entire international community representation in Liberia to raise the red flag, though in their usual euphemistic or diplomatic language.
For the PUL, which I often regard the last genuine bastion of Liberian people’s struggle for rights and rice, to surrender it members for public reprimand reflects the near irredeemable state of rude and reckless journalism in the country. Though there have been quite a few strayed folks in the past, never had the PUL or the Liberia public seen the rise of newspersons wrecking the least fundamentals of journalism. The PUL has prided itself, and is widely respected, for fathering countless decent and honorable members groomed on the basics of its professional creed.
Though there are some decent products of the PUL who ironically would, for reasons that suit their current political perspective, go in blind defense of some chronically strayed folks, the bare fact is that every member knows, or should know, the PUL’s Code of Conduct enjoins members to adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behavior in performing their duties.
These are just few lines from the Code:
- Journalists are enjoined to refrain from using language or materials that have the potential to inflame passions and aggravate tensions.
- Journalists should not publish or broadcast any report or a write-up affecting the reputation of an individual or an individual or organization without the chance to reply. That is unfair and must be avoided.
- Journalists should refrain from plagiarism, defamation, obscenity, slander and unformed accusations. Where there is need to use other’s material, it is proper to credit the source.
- Be rigorous against becoming channels to promote hate, discrimination, incite violence and threaten the freedom of others.
Those precepts are not just PUL standards. They are also global journalistic standards. The United States, which is credited for being the bastion of free speech and free press, has got standards that are no different. The Code of Ethics of the US Press Association requires journalists, amongst other things, “to show good taste; avoid pandering to lurid curiosity and to test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”
The Journalism Encyclopedia, published by the Open School of Journalism, states: “According to federal law, it is illegal to air obscene broadcasts at any time of day, and to air indecent programming or to use profane language at certain times of the day. Television and radio stations may have their licenses to broadcast revoked if they break this law. Other penalties include a fine or simply a warning.”
In the last couple of months, the PUL sent out warnings against the flagrant pollution of the airwaves. The international community also decried it. But some strayed folks, perhaps in their incurable frustration to settle political scores or perhaps because of their odd upbringing or both, have chosen to turn journalism upside down, lacerate acceptable fundamental ethics of journalism and fill the airwaves with cusses, vituperations, falsehoods and excitement to violence.
There is no absolute shield for such deliberate perversion of journalistic ethos. Even for those who attempt to find escape route from the prism of journalistic standards by calling themselves “political commentators” and “non journalists”, there is not hiding place for them. Claim of being non-journalist is not sufficient shield to condone recklessness in the public discourse. Liberian Constitution and laws, like those of advanced democracies and the developed world, do have restraints upon and limitations to free speech and free expression.
In a comparative study done June 2019 on the “Limits of the Freedom of Expression” by the Law Library of the Library of Congress, it was found out that of all countries surveyed appear to expressly recognize the right to freedom of speech as a constitutional or fundamental right. Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute; all the countries apply limitations to it at varied levels.
The study, which covered the United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil, Netherlands, Japan and others, found that limitations on the right of expression exist in all the surveyed countries and are recognized under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to the survey report, “Such limitations are designed to secure a variety of objectives that may include the protection of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, health, morals, the integrity of public service, a person’s dignity and good name, religious feelings, etc. Protection of these and additional objectives are provided under the countries’ constitutional provisions as well as under statutory and case law, as relevant.”
While it is true that we have had a checkered history specifically bordering the exercise of other civic liberties, our legal and constitutional provisions describing limitations to free speech also clearly fall within the ambit of generally acceptable international human rights law and the objectives for which those limitations instituted by every state.
In the past in Liberia, many journalists and civil society actors if not all fell to the claws of past national leaders. Those incidents were not because national security, public safety, health and morals were violated. Even journalists who published or broadcasted empirically established facts were also punished or persecuted. Journalists were hated just for holding their gadgets. Public officials were incensed, and they even punished journalists for not writing their full official titles.
What has been happening in the last two years is not journalism. It is not an exercise of civil liberties.
I can hear someone asking, “Who determines what is good journalism or what is the better exercise of civil liberties?” The law does. Anyone who did elementary civics knows what the Constitution prescribes. A true Liberian journalist knows what the PUL prescribes. Article 5(a) of the 1986 Constitution states that every person shall have the right to freedom of expression, being fully responsible for the abuse thereof. PUL Code of Ethics prohibit reckless journalism.
The Liberian media landscape, principally the airwaves, have been defiled with shameful utterances what can be described as verbal obscenity, or simply pure obscenity. “Journalists” and “political commentators” in clear violation of journalistic code and public nuisance laws continue to spew crude profanities, using the “f” and “s” words freely, loudly without an iota of remorse. Some instigate violence, threaten bloodbath and vow insurrection.
Interestingly, sections of the Liberian public take delight in, and celebrate this reckless strange public discourse. Even some journalists, civil society actors and parents and senior citizens who cannot use and allow the use of such discourteous, uncouth and un-Liberian vulgarities at their workplaces and homes elatedly cheer and welcome the defilement of media landscape by self-styled political commentators. Most regrettably, the Liberian religious community—Christian and Muslim leaders alike—that should have been the moral paragons of society remain ambivalent and nearly patronizing to such a morally debased attitude. Their latest joint statement on the shutdown of three radio stations is one evidence in point.
But though a couple of Liberian “Men of God” and some senior citizens and a plethora of journalistic scholars have clearly failed to condemn and reject the rising pollution of the public discourse with cusses, profanities and incitement to chaos and violence which has been the new normal in the public discourse, reasonable and lawful governmental action is the last resort.
Indeed, the extraordinary tolerance of the George Weah administration in its nearly two years of existence is understandable, giving the country’s long history of tyranny and coupled with the President’s recent deliberate moves that dismantled anti-free speech laws. But the sustained willful and sinister dragging of the peace and serenity of public space in the mud of indecency, chaos and disorder is extremely intolerable even in paradise.
Thus, invoking and activating appropriate sections of the chaos-prevention and decency-protection actions as upheld by the Criminal Procedure Law and the Penal Law is a timely and necessary nail hammered into the coffin of Armageddon-style politics and profanity-laden journalism taking in the public space.
The screws and hammers against spoilers of political advocacy and decent journalism must be tightened strongly and deeply lest we make the impression that governance in Liberia is in free fall and that moral ethos have expired in the country.
No one wants a relapse to tyranny. No one wants heavy-handedness upon any citizen or group of citizens. Certainly not me. Not even President Weah. But should we teach our children and tell foreigners monitoring our discourse that reckless vulgarity, disrespect for each other and unremorseful incitement to violence and chaos are acceptable behaviors? In fact, does the execution of the appropriate laws for the sake of public safety and order connote relapse to tyranny?
The enforcement of law aside, Liberia is still a socially conservative country. Christian and Muslim and even our tribal mores forbid disorderly conduct, including profanities, not to mention directing them at elderly people and leaders. Liberians respect elders. We are peaceful and loving people. Before now, our national discourse had observed these moral precepts. Even the most bitter politician and most vocal journalist would speak and act within the ambits of social values.
How we got at this point of anarchy where folks use public radios to spew and haul the crudest of invectives, profanities, vulgarities at just anybody, including opinion leaders, peers, statesmen and national leaders without the slightest remorse is bewildering. How threats of violence, bloodbath and disorder against national stability have taken over responsible politicking that is underpinned by the desire for peaceful coexistence is everyone’s wonder.
However, when properly checked, it seems, as Charles Taylor once put it, perhaps “someone’s mother did not bear them good.” Clearly, someone is out for dangerous mischief at the full detriment of national peace and national values. Someone is a wayward or gone wayward. This must stop. It must be stopped. And I want to see and hear someone who thinks and believes that insults, invectives, disrespect and instigation of violence is something to celebrate and condone.