Counter speech as a strategy to prevent hate speech in Uganda
There has been a great deal of hue and cry among the Ugandans over the scale of hate speech targeting certain members of society. Some episodes of hate speech have recently fomented or triggered instances of mob actions as counter measures in certain quarters in Uganda. It is little wonder that Uganda has recently enacted the Computer Misuse Act (2022) with specific provisions to address hate speech online. This approach has had many detractors with good reason prophesying the law will have claw back effects on freedom of expression.
While legislating against hate speech is an option, it can be abused, especially where the law does not measure up to the regional and international human rights standards on freedom of expression or where there is a strong culture of rule by law as opposed to rule of law. Arguably, Uganda has a fair measure of both.
In order that the baby is not thrown out with the bathtub, Uganda might be better off exploring other options in countering hate speech such as inaction by the affected party, Deletion/suspension of the offending content (mostly by government or platforms)and, counter speech.
Counter speech can be considered as a tactic of countering hate speech or misinformation (which is very common in the post-truth age that we live in) by presenting an alternative narrative rather than with censorship of the offending speech.
A range of strategies can be utilised by counter-speakers. For instance, they can warn the hate speaker of the harm that hateful speech would have on the affected persons; shame and label the hate speaker which would entail denouncing the speech as hateful so that cyber-bystanders are able to identify and relate to it as such; establishing affiliation with the affected person and offering messages of support or reacting to hate speech with humour.
Counter speech is preferable to other ways for several reasons. Notably, it preserves the right to freedom of speech; precludes the possibility of opportunistic use of the law by politicians; fosters free debate which is crucial for the strengthening and spread of democratic ideals; and offers an opportunity to counter hate speech with reason and sanity while protecting the diverse viewpoints.
The first two options of countering hate speech should be applied in as far as they are consistent with international standards and best practices on freedom of expression. Of all these tactics only counter speech apparently offers inexhaustible potency to address hate speech with limited claw back effect on freedom of expression.
Uganda should consider investing in strengthening the culture of counter speech as opposed to pre-eminently relying on a legalistic approach.
Therefore, there is a need to create an awareness amongst both public and intellectuals on counter speech and to discourage the possible use of negative strategies like aggressive tone or insults which could trigger backfire effect; harassment or silencing of the hate speaker altogether through hostile outburst or ganging up online against the hate speaker and letting off an avalanche of hostile responses (dogpiling).
The aim should be making counter speech (as a practice by average person) more common and create an awareness about its power. National Human Rights Institutions such as the Uganda human rights commission, Equal Opportunities Commission and Uganda Communication Commission as well civil society organisations can play a key role to engender the constructive use of counter speech
Mehmet Sebih Oruc PhD researcher University of Newcastle, Intern at Justice Access Point – Uganda
