User:Alihussein2019/sandbox/ Compare Ethiopia and Kenya’s Freedom of Speech in 2000-2015

{Ali Mohammed|Compare Ethiopia and Kenya’s Freedom of Speech in 2000-2015|2019}

1.1	Introduction

Freedom of speech is a bellwether: how any society tolerates those with minority, disfavored, or even obnoxious views will often speak to its performance on human rights more generally. In international law, access to information and free expression are two sides of the same coin, and both have found tremendous accelerators in the Internet and other forms of digital communication. At the same time, efforts to control speech and information are also accelerating, by both governments and private actors in the form of censorship, restrictions on access, and violent acts directed against those whose views or queries are seen as somehow dangerous or wrong. From our earliest days, when we were called The Fund for Free Expression, we have fought all forms of repression of speech, in all media, around the globe (Cochrem, 2011). Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong. Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.' Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted. You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances, free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted. Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect the specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others. Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must, in turn, be clear and concise so everyone can understand them. People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate. All of this has to be backed up by safeguards to stop the abuse of these restrictions and incorporate a proper appeals process (Amnesty International, 2018). Article 19 of the United Nations says everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (United Nations, N, D).

1.2 Historical Background Freedom of speech the right to express opinions without government restraint is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C. During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings (HISTORY.COM EDITORS, MAY 9, 2019). In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are and aren’t protected under U.S. law. In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship. The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts. In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavoury one) without fear of government censorship. It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media. Flag Burning While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea. Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning. When Isn’t Speech Protected? Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. Forms of speech that aren’t protected include: 	Obscene material such as child pornography 	Plagiarism of copyrighted material 	Defamation (libel and slander) 	True threats Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either. The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment. Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security. American labour leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act (HISTORY.COM EDITORS, MAY 9, 2019).

Freedom of Expression the Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech. In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm. In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

1.3	Elements of Freedom of Speech

a)	Freedom of Obtaining News and Information The freedom of obtainment of information and freedom of information is the first element and first step of freedom of expression. It concerns the stage before the formation of thought. In essence, it corresponds to the step where news, ideas and information are investigated and freely learned (Kucuk, 2003). b)	Freedom of Opinion Freedom of opinion forms the second of the element of freedom of expression. It is possible to say that freedom of opinion is protected from the limitations regulated under Article 10/2 of the Convention. It is also the prerequisite of the freedoms regulated in the related provision. Freedom of opinion can be claimed to have an absolute qualification, based on the statement of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) that it is not possible to restrict freedom of opinion and thought in a democratic society (Erdem, May-August 2018) c)	Freedom to Declare Ideas and Opinions the obtained belief and opinion eventually reveals the freedom of declaration of ideas and opinions, which is the most operative and important element of freedom of expression. The freedom of declaration of ideas is the expression of thoughts. The right to receive news and information and the freedom of forming and holding opinions can only make sense with the freedom of declaration of ideas and opinions. Otherwise, it would be impossible to talk about the existence of freedom of expression as a whole (Reisoglu, 2001). In the general sense, the notion of the declaration of ideas constitutes the reflection of an individual from the information he/she has received from the outer world. There are many mediums to deliver ideas and opinions. d)	The speech or writings of an individual or a collective organization is an example of such mediums. Collective upheavals at meetings, demonstrations, unfurling banners, posters, associations, organized attitudes, actions, movements conducted via the political parties, can be all counted as examples of expression. In that respect, it is possible to talk about different formats of view of freedom of expression (Erdem, May-August 2018).

1.4 Ethiopia Freedom of Speech

Ethiopia’s government has a long track history of curtailing independent media, limiting the rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The media landscape has traditionally been heavily state-controlled and dominated by Amharic-language publications and broadcasts focused on events and issues in the capital, Addis Ababa. Since 2005, the government has shut down dozens of publications. Many journalists have been threatened, intimidated, and targeted for politically-motivated prosecutions under criminal or terrorism charges. As a result, at least 60 journalists have fled into exile since 2010. In 2017, Ethiopia was among Africa’s leading jailer of journalists. Self-censorship is common. The government had also sought to suppress independent diaspora-led media outlets based outside of Ethiopia. Many blogs and websites run by Ethiopians in the diaspora were blocked inside Ethiopia. The government pressured satellite companies to drop the US-based Oromia Media Network (OMN), which disseminated independent information during the protests that began in 2015. The government arrested people who showed OMN in their businesses, jammed satellite television programs, and charged OMN under the country’s sweeping anti-terrorism law in October 2016. US-based Ethiopian Satellite Television (ESAT) was subject to similar tactics. Radio stations broadcasting content in Ethiopian languages were also jammed, including Voice of America and Deutsche Welle. Internet shutdowns were commonplace during the 2015-2018 protests, made easier because Ethiopia’s only internet service provider is owned by the government (Human Rights Watch, April 3, 2019). In addition to the Anti-Terrorism Law, the 2011 Freedom of Mass Media and Information Proclamation and the 2016 Computer Crime Proclamation have laid the legal groundwork for the government’s restriction of freedom of expression. The media law grants broad powers to initiate defamation suits and demand corrections in print publications, along with sweeping powers to deny media licenses. The criminal code also has criminal defamation provisions. Computer crime law has broad provisions that could be used to stifle critical commentary and freedom of expression. The law criminalizes defamation, distribution of unsolicited content, and content that “incites fear, violence, chaos or conflict.” Individuals providing information to international or diaspora-based journalists have reported arrests and harassment, sometimes based on intercepted phone calls. Freedom of Expression Significant progress has been made on media freedom in Ethiopia. In one year, Ethiopia has gone from being one of the leading jailors of journalists in Africa to having no journalists in jail for the first time since 2004. Diaspora media outlets previously banned in Ethiopia operate freely and journalists report few threats from the government’s security services. Despite the progress, there’s still a reluctance in the media to critique the government or ask difficult questions. Hate speech on social media, especially Facebook, is a serious and growing problem, although the government’s proposed hate speech law raises concerns it may be used to stifle legitimate expressions of dissent. (Human Rights Watch, April 3, 2019). 1.4	Freedom of Speech in Kenya

Kenya failed to make progress in promoting political rights and civil liberties in 2000. An inconclusive and controversial constitutional reform process made little headway. President Daniel Arap Moi signalled his intention to keep power firmly in hand, despite widespread calls for meaningful change. National elections are scheduled to take place no later than 2002, and Kenyan African National Union (KANU) members began to float trial balloons about the possibility of revising the constitution to allow Moi to run again. Kenya's political rights and civil liberties ratings improved from 4 to 3 due to positive post-2002 election developments in 2003, including a constitutional review process, an anti-corruption campaign, and efforts to strengthen judicial independence. A 2013 law was proposed that would limit financial support of Kenyan anti-corruption civil society organizations. By limiting the financial support to 15 per cent of their budget, citizens would be deprived of their fundamental right for their voices to be heard (Kenya Seeks to Silence Critics of Government, 2013). This legislation set precedence to limit protests and freedom of assembly (Kenya Impedes Critics by Restricting Free Assembly, 2013), as well as social media posts.

In 2015, Freedom House found that Kenyan citizens support human rights groups (Kenya: Public Support for Human Rights Groups, 2015). The vast majority of respondents believe that human rights groups have a positive impact on society by encouraging freedom of speech and defending their interests, potentially helping to reduce the corruption within the country (Kenya: Public Support for Human Rights Groups, 2015). Although the legislation has not been overturned, this may change to match more closely with public opinion. Free speech can be seen as just speaking one’s mind, but it is also the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas from whatever medium a person chooses (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 19). A fundamental freedom in the Kenyan bill of rights, freedom of speech should not be limited except for under a two-part circumstance: by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom (Kenya Const. art. XXIV, sec. 1). Remaining true to the constitution, the high profile Karua v. Radio Africa Ltd. found that defamation and slander infringe on human dignity, equality and freedom. Here, Martha Karua, a politician, sued Radio Africa Ltd., a radio station located in Kenya, for broadcasting a segment about her that was false, malicious, disparaging professionally, politically and socially and an invasion of privacy. Upon considering the facts of the case, judges set a precedent declaring slander unconstitutional. Although the court respects the fundamental freedom of expression rights (Civil Suit 288 of 2004, 2004), the International Covenant states that freedom of speech must respect the reputations of others (Art. 19). Karua v. Radio Africa Ltd. set up precedence for defamation. The people of Kenya are able to differentiate what is constitutional and unconstitutional when broadcasting about one’s reputation and lies about their personal life. (Civil Suit 288 of 2004, 2004).

1.6 Conclusion From the beginning, in the US, the nature of freedom of expression and of the press was based on a culturally literate society within an independent economic structure. By contrast, the growth of the media in Kenya was in many instances a direct response to the presence of a new government in a dependent continent. In both nations, the role of the media as a formal opposition and the role of the media as a leader of government policy in uniting the country to work for democratic and social progress has served as the focal point of tension. In the US the tension has routinely been worked out in the courts while in Kenya the process is just budding. In Terrell's words, it is too soon to determine whether Kenya's leaders will prove capable of striking a functional balance between the proper exercise of state authority and the evolving concepts of free speech and constructive criticism. Nonetheless, it is already apparent that the government's openness regarding this extremely complex matter which is tied to its larger objective of winning support from the public for its development strategy will require the implementing of policies designed to permit greater freedom of the press. According to Reporters without Borders Ethiopia was 139 out of 178 in its latest worldwide index in January 2012. Government censorship, harassment and arrest of bloggers and journalists severely restricts freedom of the press in Ethiopia: in December 2009, Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson were convicted for "rendering support to terrorism" and entering the country illegally "to commit an act that is a threat to the well-being of the people of Ethiopia." Status: Pardoned in 2011, Hellman-Hammett Award winner Woodshed Taye Abebe was arrested. He was charged under the anti-terrorism law. Before his arrest, he was the deputy editor of the Awramba Times. Status: In prison in 2012, Reeyot Alemu Gobebo, a journalist for Feteh, was convicted on three counts under the terrorism law and initially sentenced to 14 years in prison. This sentence was reduced to 5 years on appeal. Status: In prison. In 2012 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award recipient Eskinder Nega was arrested under terrorism charges for his reporting on the Arab Spring; in 2014 six members of the Zone 9 blogging collective were arrested under terrorism charges related to their reporting and use of online encryption tools. Comparing the two countries are some according to freedom of speech or human rights Kenya is better than Ethiopia because of All these events are evidence to that there is weak freedom of speech in Ethiopia.

1.7 References Amnesty International, U. (2018). What is freedom of speech? https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right. Africa: Kenya. Central Intelligence Agency. 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html. Akrivopoulou, Christina. Defending Human Rights and Democracy in the Era of Globalization. IGI Global, 2017, pp. 89. Brandenburg v. Ohio. United States Supreme Court. 395 U.S. 444. 1969. Civil Suit 288 of 2004: Martha Karua v. Radio Africa Ltd. t/a Kiss FM Station & 2 Others. Cochrem, T. (2011). Free Speech. https://www.hrw.org/topic/free-speech. Erdem, B. (May-August 2018). The Elements of Freedom of Expression in the Light of the European Convention on Human. http://journals.euser.org/files/articles/ejis_v4_i2_18/Bora.pdf. HISTORY.COM EDITORS. (MAY 9, 2019). Freedom of Speech. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech. Human Rights Watch. (April 3, 2019). Ethiopia: Abiy’s First Year as Prime Minister, Review of Freedom of Expression. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/03/ethiopia-abiys-first-year-prime-minister-review-freedom-expression. Kenya Law. 16 June 2004. http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/23016/. The Constitution of Kenya. Art. XXIV Sec. 1 United Nations. (N, D). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.