Breaking News is that Manipur State Government in India has banned the glorification of terrorism and a huge load of other media restrictions on what can be reported on the terrorist groups. Now this is a very good ethical question, where does freedom of speech end and security considerations start? Two trite cliches help can help. (1) free speech does not mean shouting fire in a crowded theater and (2) your right of free speech ends at the tip of my nose. So as long as free speech does not lead to security issues, crime and/or violence, it is free. Now the next question is, who judges where is this boundary? because there is nothing more important to a democracy than a fearless free press.
That is where a newspaper ombudsman, a regulator of information and finally a free court /legal system comes in to control and challenge any bad implementations of the security laws which can overload the security aspects versus the free speech aspects.
Speaking from a pure counter-terrorism perspective, I would say that a communications strategy is vital, because not only you want the terrorist voice to be stopped, but you also want to be trusted enough to tell the truth by being generally open. If the state is considered to be hiding things, then trust breaks down, conspiracy theories run amok and it all ends in tears.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment