Rights versus duties

The government’s warning to Nepalis Friday to refrain from using internet sites, including popular social networking websites such as Facebook, to character assassinate or spread malice of public figures through insulting sketches, cartoons and baseless write-ups was, as expected, welcomed and mostly criticized. While it is natural for people to take extreme sides on such issues depending on which side of the fence they belong to, we – at the risk of being dubbed apologists for the government’s move – urge them to refrain from doing that and analyze the home ministry’s move from multiple perspectives.



Let us first understand that the ministry has not come up with a “new” provision to “curb the freedom of speech and expression” that most reactions on our popular website www.myrepublica.com seem to suggest. The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 already has a provision for slapping a fine of Rs 100,000 or a jail term of five years or both to anyone involved in spreading insulting and illicit content. The government’s warning Friday was just a “gentle” reminder that it would not shy away from using the existing provision if people henceforth continue misusing internet sites.



But the larger question in the entire debate is: How much is too much? Who will define what content is acceptable or not acceptable or what is decent or indecent? In the absence of a scientific method to measure what is right and wrong, would not the government misuse the provision to corner someone it does not like? These are valid questions and fears and it would serve well if the state can work on the details and make it public.



At the same time, we must also understand that however hard the state tries, there will always be room for subjectivity in such matters. In such a scenario, how do we move forward? Perhaps, at the end of the day, it all boils down to common sense. We, the internet users, need to realize that political leaders and public figures too are human beings and attacks against them beyond a point look dirty and demeaning in a public space. At the same time, leaders and public figures have to realize that because they are constantly in public spotlight, they will be talked about and debated. Unless the attacks are really personal and insulting, it will save everyone a lot of trouble if they can take that with a dose of humor.



Let us end with a wonderful line by British journalist and author A G Gardiner that best sums up our paper’s position on the issue: “Liberty is not a personal affair only, but a social contract. A reasonable consideration for rights or feelings of others is the foundation of social conduct.” Happy surfing!

Related story

Balance between rights and duties makes republic meaningful: PM...