Prime
Misuse of computer vs misuse of the Computer Misuse Act?
Odoobo C. Bichachi
What you need to know:
- Journalists and civil society activists have been at the forefront of rejecting this law – and rightly so – because journalism is about communication and civil society is about articulation of alternative perspectives, sometimes unpalatable to the establishment. They may therefore be caught not by this law, but by its misuse.
A lot of ink, airtime and all has been poured on this subject since the recent passing of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022. The matter is now before the courts where lawyers and judges shall have their day, and we ordinary folks shall hear the last word.
Journalists and civil society activists have been at the forefront of rejecting this law – and rightly so – because journalism is about communication and civil society is about articulation of alternative perspectives, sometimes unpalatable to the establishment. They may therefore be caught not by this law, but by its misuse.
So we find ourselves in a dilemma. On one hand, the State is trying to get around the misuse of an otherwise good gadget that has revolutionised and simplified our lives – the computer, particularly when it comes to social media. The misuse is real, sometimes unnerving, and increasingly bold.
On the other hand, journalists and civil society are trying to get around a law that seeks to protect individuals from cyber abuse (a good thing in itself) but can potentially be misused by the State. There are many cases of State abuse of laws to justify this fear.
It is a situation where both sides are right and wrong, and public opinion is split depending on which side of the receiving end one has been, or the ones they know.
If you have been hauled into police cells or tortured in dungeons for tweeting or posting stuff about politics, etc on social media, this is a terrible law that must not remain on our statute books.
If untruths, insults and malicious information has been shared about you on social media or your privacy (including nudes) has been invaded with impunity and glee on social media, then this is a welcome law.
Several statements have been bandied around this matter: freedom of expression, right to offend, right to insult, right not to be offended, right not to be insulted, etc as the basis for arguments by the different points of view.
My perspective on these slogans is that “freedom of expression” is noble and must be protected. It envisages the right to hold opinions, express them and debate within the parameters of civility and morality. The “right to offend” goes hand-in-hand with this because an honest opinion may offend someone but one should live with it; it should not be suppressed or victimised.
The “right to insult” on the other hand is deviant from the principle of freedom of expression. It is immoral, anarchic and harmful. It is not a right; it is an abuse of the rights of others and a misuse of freedom of expression. It should be punished.
The “right not to be offended” is nonexistent because offense is often part of the exchange of ideas and should therefore be tolerated because it arises out of opinion which is protected. The “right not to be insulted”, defamed, slandered, etc is, on the other hand, is important for good order and peace in society. People must be protected from deviant members of society who thrive on mendacity, perversity and ill-manners.
Those supporting or opposing the Computer Misuse Act find themselves at crossroads of understanding “netizens” and “netizen behaviours” much the same way philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau found themselves in the early years of enlightenment on the question of what man is like “in a state of nature” and what interventions are right or necessary.
Was “man in a state of nature naturally peaceful and timid; at the least danger, his first reaction is to flee; he only fights through the force of habit and experience” as Rousseau argued? Or that “the state of nature was one in which there were no enforceable criteria of right and wrong. People took for themselves all that they could, and human life was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. That man was in a state of a war of all against all” as Hobbes posited?
Many Ugandans have been victims of computer misuse or misuse of laws relating to use of computers. Many of them, in a “state of nature on social media” are law abiding and ethical; using social media responsibly to chat, debate and socialise.
It is a small group that has no qualms defaming and insulting others online, or kidnapping and torturing others in dungeons. Both wear suits (or uniform), went to school, and are husbands and fathers. They live, eat and laugh with us.
Ugandans should be protected against both. How, is the big question!
Send your feedback/complaints to
call/text on +256 776 500725.
