Slashdot Mirror
Sri Lanka Blocks Facebook, Instagram To Prevent Spread of Hate Speech (lankabusinessonline.com)
Sri Lanka has blocked social media websites Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to avoid the spread of hate speech in the country, local media reported on Wednesday. From the report: Even though there is no official confirmation from the authorities, the Cabinet Spokesman Minister Rajitha Senaratne on Wednesday said the government has decided to block access to certain social media. Telecom Regulatory Commission (TRC) has started to monitor all social media platforms to curb hate speech related to communal riots escalated in Kandy district. Telecommunication service providers (ISPs) have also restricted internet access in Kandy district on the instructions of the TRC.
In this particular case, a Buddhist man died so Buddhists are rioting and have burned down numerous mosques and Muslim owned shops and houses. Sri Lanka is not long removed from a pretty intense 25 year civil war between the Tamil minority and buddhist government. The Tamils are mostly Hindu, Christian, and Muslim. So Sri Lanka has a bit of a history of violence and oppression towards non-buddhists.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This is a common practice in this part of the world. A temporary blockage of social media for 1-2 days, usually restricted to just a district or a city is common in India.
It is employed when the law enforcing agencies are caught unaware about some sudden flashpoint that triggers street violence. This blockage stops spreading of violence to larger area and give time to enforcement agencies to mobilize their resources
It is not to be confused with censorship or blanket ban of internet / social media forever. Over all it has a positive impact in preventing larger scale destruction of life and properties for cost of inconvenience of few days.
If you think this situation started with the refugee crisis, think again. Germany has had such laws in the books long before the current refugee crisis, up to the point that using nazi-symbolism is punishable by law, as is denying the holocaust. These laws prohibiting 'incitement of violence' or hatred against ethnic grouops have been on the books for decades, the recent law regarding social media is just the latest development. Even prior to the passage of the law, someone posting hate speech online could be fined in Germany and elsewhere, the only thing that the law changed was make it possible for the platforms to be fined for failing to remove such content.
Now granted, the recent influx of refugees has made the situation a lot more heated, but the general point is that Germany has been using censorship and hate-speech laws to control the (mostly) far-right groups in the country long before the last couple of years.
Note that this is not to say I agree with their laws, I think they're hastily implemented and essentially make the problem worse, not better. But the general point is that this sort of attitude within Germany (as well as other European countries) is not something they just recently came up with. The 2nd world war left its mark on the law(s) in many places, including here in Finland, Austria, Ireland and the UK.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Since these civil disturbances have led to people being killed: Yes, there is hate speech to curb, and yes these measures at least help.
At least it is better than the 'lala-can't-hear-you' policy that the government used in the past.
This is simply not true. There have been hate speech convictions in Germany and elsewhere prior to the current refugee crisis. A Finnish far-right politician whose only talking point throughout the years has been opposing immigration got sentenced to fines for calling all muslims pedophiles way back in 2012. Here's a story of a drunk neo-Nazi being fined for doing the Hitler salute in 2011. Etc, you can find many more examples using google.
Again, do I agree with these laws? No. Do I agree with the far-right? No, but saying that these laws have never been used before is simply not true.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead