Media Roundtable: The Media & Hate Speech

Last month’s media roundtable centred around whether the media is better to prepared to deal with issues of hate speech and inflammatory language than it was 5 years ago, in the lead up to the 2007 elections? The use of inflammatory language by both politicians and lay people in the lead up to the 2007 is cited as one of the major contributors to the post election violence of 2007/2008. Following the post election violence the media was accused of exacerbating the situation through the manner in which it covered, the election and the ensuing violence, and in some instances directly contributing to the violence through the dissemination of inflammatory language through the manner of its coverage.

The most potent symbol of the media’s role in the post election is the indictment of radio presenter Joshua Sang by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity on charges related to the dissemination of hate-speech.

Since 2008 there has been a slew of legislation that prohibits the use of speech/inflammatory language and deals with the media’s responsibility in covering it. The Constitution though guaranteeing freedom expression and freedom of the media has specific prohibitions on hate-speech and inflammatory language. Article 33 (2) excludes from the ambit of freedom of expression or freedom of media hate speech; advocacy of hatred ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm, advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Sections 13 and 62 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act (NCI) deals specifically with hate speech and the media’s coverage of it. Section 13 of NCI Act defines hate speech in terms of the manner of speaking, or using material (threateningly, abusively) and in terms of its intended object (to stir up hatred against some group). Section 62 of the Act stipulates that, “Any person who utters words intended to incite feelings of contempt hatred hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction of a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.” And further that “A newspaper, radio station or media enterprises that publishes the utterances referred to in section (1) commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to fine not exceeding one million. The Media Act, Political Parties Act, the Elections Act, Information and Communication Regulations also offer extensive regulations to prohibit the use of hate speech.

Despite this slew of legislation prohibiting hate speech there seems to be an increase in the use of inflammatory language by politicians in the lead up to the March 4, 2013 elections. Inflammatory comments made by politicians is said to have played a large part in the to the recent violence in Tana River. The use of inflammatory and divisive language by politicians has contributed to the increasing volatility in the coastal region. Several MPs have been investigated by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) on hate speech/incitement charges however there have been few prosecutions: And politicians are not the only ones using hate speech recently three musicians were charged with inciting ethnic violence through their songs lyrics.

The media is an indispensible part of our democracy. Through coverage of events in the lead up to elections the media it can either act as medium for the dissemination of inflammatory language or hate speech or an expose those who engage in it and ameliorate its effects, it's basically a question of how responsible journalists and media are. In your opinion is the media is better to prepared to deal with issues of hate speech and inflammatory language than it was 5 years ago? And is the NCIC doing enough to curb use of hate speech and inflammatory language by politicians?

Posted by Mzalendo Editor on Sept. 3, 2012

Categories:  No tags