Recent censorship allegations doing the rounds locally show how easily falsehoods are spread on the Internet
David Le Page
For two weeks the Internet has been the spawning ground for widespread, distorted rumours about the government’s alleged plan to institute Internet “censorship” measures, “similar to those introduced in China”.
The Interception and Monitoring Bill about to be introduced to Parliament contains no recipe for Internet censorship, though provisions that provide scope for official abuse are of considerable concern.
In China, Internet use is restricted; people are regularly imprisoned or detained for accessing illegal content, such as political criticism of that country’s government.
The spread of disinformation about the Bill provides alarming insights both into how easily disinformation is spread on the Internet and on how readily it provides a home for any bad news on South Africa.
The “Net censorship” allegations began on a website run by a former South African journalist called Adriana Stuijt. Stuijt produces frequent contributions for a right-wing United States news site called NewsMax.com articles such as “Roe v Wade Reversal: Now Roe is against abortion and wants your help”.
Stuijt’s website is called censorbugbear.com, where “more than 30 South African journalists, including [Stuijt], regularly post uncensored news about developments in South Africa”.
According to Stuijt: “Censorship by South African authorities has led to a dramatic increase in organised crime and even to the worldwide spread of disease [foot and mouth].” She claims there is a “media blackout” on the attacks being suffered by farmers, and that the government is “engaged in a deliberate criminalisation campaign in the news media against its commercial farmers”.
After appearing on the NewsMax site, Stuijt’s Internet censorship story appeared on computerweek.co.za. (It was subsequently replaced by one offering “a more balanced view”.) The hysterical version of the report then spread internationally to well-known sites, hitting TheRegister.co.uk, from where it was linked to by the prestigious US site, Wired News.
Soon, evangelical e-mails titled “Urgent!!! Your freedom of speech is at risk” were circulating among South Africans.
In an e-mail to the Mail & Guardian, Stuijt denied engineering a campaign against the Bill. But, she said, “the 124 members on our free MSN Communities website did start ringing their own alarm bells once they had read the entire law themselves”. How her community members read it is not clear none of the websites or e-mails protesting against the Bill have carried any links to the Bill.
Stuijt ignored repeated queries about which specific provisions of the Bill raise the spectre of Chinese-style Internet censorship.
Collette Herzenberg, secretary to the parliamentary justice and constitutional development committee, said she has received more than 100 requests for copies of the Bill.
She said many of the objections lodged by the public appeared to be based on second-hand accounts of the Bill and that some of those objections were withdrawn when protesters had read it.
Unfortunately, the disinformation campaign may end up damaging the cause its proponents claim to espouse, for when the smoke that has blown up about the issue clears, much energy that should have gone into addressing real problems in the Bill will probably have dissipated.
The problem was caused largely by the government. Public comment on the Bill was invited before its introduction to Parliament and not after, as is usual. Bills are posted on the Internet only when introduced and so the disinformation and knocks to South Africa’s reputation have been fertilised by a dearth of official information.
The Bill can now be read on the Internet, thanks to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, at www.pmg.org.
za/bills/Interception0107.htm. The deadline for comment is August 13.