Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and hate speech: A 365 paradox rotation

____________

OPINION

By Innocent Ruyooka Murindwa

With media and social media being the order of business, information has been made available to the general public through various communication channels, and these include the television, newspapers, radio, and the internet, and these have enabled users to create, recreate and share content as final consumers.

Misinformation is false or somewhat misleading information spread without the intent to deceive. This is in instances where the person communicating is in honest belief that it is correct and true, whereas not. Disinformation is false information that is shared and is deliberately intended to mislead the final consumer(s). From this, we can deduce that this kind of information is directed to harm any person consuming it or to whom it refers.

Malinformation is the information which is based on a fact or set of facts from their original context, and it is an exaggeration intended to inflict harm on an individual. With the increased reliance on the internet and Artificial Intelligence (AI), we have intentionally, unintentionally or subconsciously consumed this doxed and manipulated information published with a misleading claim.

Hate speech, on the other hand, is the communication that encourages violence towards a person or group based on their national origin, religion, or economic class. Hate speech can include incitement of violence based on social class or political beliefs. From this, we can decipher that hate speech includes verbal utterances, gestures, conduct, writing or displays on various media which incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or persons on the basis of their membership in the group.

With misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and hate speech, they have generated violence and discrimination against vulnerable members of society, and this in turn causes frustration. More and more measures have been taken to limit this form of communication by the Executive and the Judiciary arms of the Government. The essence is not to prohibit the freedom of speech but to prevent hate speech from escalating into something prejudicial and dangerous.

Applied then and now, the legal status of hate speech is used as an infringement on freedom of expression against the opposition and various members of society. The Constitution is clear, specific and emphatic on the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom of the press, media and opinions. The Supreme Court of Uganda has decided in various cases relating to hate speech and held that in determining hate speech, the communication must promote hatred against an identifiable group, but this communication shall exclude private conversations, and it must be made wilfully.

On the eve of the General Elections, the Judiciary has entertained a streak of cases relating to the offence of hate speech contrary to the Computer Misuse Act, which includes the likes of Elson Tumwine, who is a student at Makerere University. More to this, the Electoral Commission, through its Chairman, has cautioned the general public and political aspirants against all forms of hate speech.

Deriving an understanding from the decisions of the Supreme Court, we can discern that for communication to be referred to as hate speech, it must have the capacity to spite the person being referred to. The question is then, should every deliberate communication with the capacity to create hate against the person being communicated about, irrespective of its truthfulness, be referred to as hate speech which in essence recedes or does away with their constitutional guarantee to freedom of expression and speech, amidst the statutory and judicial interpretation remaining murky.

The writer is a lawyer and Human Rights Advocate