Social media has grown tremendously in Kenya over the past few years. The country boasts of a huge number of internet users, recording over 17 million people who frequent the internet, and most of these are social media users. Arguably, the likes of Facebook and Twitter which had in the past been left for the younger generation have become almost every other persons avenues for expression, socialisation and pass time. This has not come without its demerits, and one of the most necessary interventions now is the intervention of legal matters concerning the use of the same. The law has been destructively insufficient, dearth and almost absent in matters regarding the use of social media, thus creating a reasons for worry.
Social media has become an attachment, rather so personal than is just social. People want to uphold their dignity, their image and their class on social media too. It has become a personal way of life, and the other avenue for personal interaction and inter-relation between people who would have possibly otherwise had none. The law has focused on other equally important avenues, such as matters relating to National Security, Governance and Politics as is often expressed via social media. In Kenya, we have seen people get arrested for violating their freedom of expression by expressing matters that have in one way or another created unwarranted suspense from the general public, and that have somewhat been mere allegations without any concrete basis. Even on these instances, there has failed to be the customary setting of legal aiding precedence.
What the law has obstinately failed to address is the relationship regarding social media users that is rather personal to personal, and not just personal to public. In this case, I mean to say, the law has given a blind eye to, say for example, the relationship between one twitter user to another. In future, it may probably become necessary for people to register their social accounts with the government as has been the case with mobile phone numbers. This is because, evidently, rocket science or not, with the growth of social media, its going to become the next channel for fraudulent and unlawful activity.
Lets take one issue for example; stalking. Stalkers are all over the social media, and in most instances it is even difficult to notice that one is being stalked. The most common legal remedy against stalkers is the attainment of a restraining order. A restraining order is simply an injunction that compels a person to do or not to do a certain act. Enter social media, and a restraining order against an online retard who constantly wants to monitor your every single move is as good as a pissing into the wind. The law however is not attributed to discordancy, and therefore, considering that stalking is intrusion of privacy, there necessitates a remedy even when it is done through social media. In this aspect, such media profiles could say, for example, be removed from the social media.
Defamation? Maybe that too! The law has for a long time had a streamlined idea concerning defamation. In this case, lets call it libel for purposes of legal prowess. Suppose someone used social media to disseminate information that is particularly innacurate concerning another person or an institution, that would create a negative image about the given party, wouldn't this amount to libel? Probably, yes, but with the intensity of the seriousness accorded in these circles, there probably would be strong counter arguments. Other media channels such as newspapers have often found themselves in legal tussles concerning libel due to their thirst for embroidering and exaggeration of written stories in an attempt to capture more readers' attention. These same media settings have now resulted to the use of social media to disseminate information and news, and therefore chances for the same are projected as per se.
Slander would also come into play. Corporate institutions would much be affected by this. Some of these institutions have allowed people to seek for job opportunities via social media, and the information portrayed by the individual concerning his, say qualifications would be of interest to the human resource departments. In the event that the information is false, it leaves a lot of questions. Would these institutions be allowed to sue for damages if any in case there are any?
The freedom of expression is constitutionally accorded and defended by the same constitution. A recent incident saw a student punished for giving information via social media concerning his school, that was regarded as derogatory and diminishing. Without laws to protect such, the law remains to be an ass, and an obstinate one in that respect. With the growth of social media, even professionals want to use the same to exercise their professions. A doctor would be sued for negligence, maybe for failing to attend to a socialite in pursuit of medical assistance. This could fail to make the least of sense as per now, but in regard to the future, it could hold water.
Personally, I abhor racists, and these characters have used social media as a playground to exploit their deluded antics. I love the way Kenyans and in general Africans have intrepidly confronted such, but legal systems should set down ways and mannerisms to deal with these dullards. For them, I would impose even death penalty, or else why would you accord such a character the right to continue sharing the same air as yourself?
Lawyers should take maximum advantage of this legal loophole, in order to create precedence and to inject a sense of responsibility to socialites. Running away from this necessity would be tantamount to tying a rope on our necks. Social interaction should be free, but should also have a sense of treading over thin ice induced in it, reason being, too much enjoyment of one's rights could mean infringement of another's rights. Anyway, lets be mature enough to allow everyone to be free and enjoy social media without any compromise. Maybe if we did so, we wouldn't need lawyers litigating in courts on matters concerning trivialities.
Meet you on the circles, enjoy, won't you?
| Facebook |
What the law has obstinately failed to address is the relationship regarding social media users that is rather personal to personal, and not just personal to public. In this case, I mean to say, the law has given a blind eye to, say for example, the relationship between one twitter user to another. In future, it may probably become necessary for people to register their social accounts with the government as has been the case with mobile phone numbers. This is because, evidently, rocket science or not, with the growth of social media, its going to become the next channel for fraudulent and unlawful activity.
Lets take one issue for example; stalking. Stalkers are all over the social media, and in most instances it is even difficult to notice that one is being stalked. The most common legal remedy against stalkers is the attainment of a restraining order. A restraining order is simply an injunction that compels a person to do or not to do a certain act. Enter social media, and a restraining order against an online retard who constantly wants to monitor your every single move is as good as a pissing into the wind. The law however is not attributed to discordancy, and therefore, considering that stalking is intrusion of privacy, there necessitates a remedy even when it is done through social media. In this aspect, such media profiles could say, for example, be removed from the social media.
Defamation? Maybe that too! The law has for a long time had a streamlined idea concerning defamation. In this case, lets call it libel for purposes of legal prowess. Suppose someone used social media to disseminate information that is particularly innacurate concerning another person or an institution, that would create a negative image about the given party, wouldn't this amount to libel? Probably, yes, but with the intensity of the seriousness accorded in these circles, there probably would be strong counter arguments. Other media channels such as newspapers have often found themselves in legal tussles concerning libel due to their thirst for embroidering and exaggeration of written stories in an attempt to capture more readers' attention. These same media settings have now resulted to the use of social media to disseminate information and news, and therefore chances for the same are projected as per se.
Slander would also come into play. Corporate institutions would much be affected by this. Some of these institutions have allowed people to seek for job opportunities via social media, and the information portrayed by the individual concerning his, say qualifications would be of interest to the human resource departments. In the event that the information is false, it leaves a lot of questions. Would these institutions be allowed to sue for damages if any in case there are any?
| Twitter fail whale |
Personally, I abhor racists, and these characters have used social media as a playground to exploit their deluded antics. I love the way Kenyans and in general Africans have intrepidly confronted such, but legal systems should set down ways and mannerisms to deal with these dullards. For them, I would impose even death penalty, or else why would you accord such a character the right to continue sharing the same air as yourself?
Lawyers should take maximum advantage of this legal loophole, in order to create precedence and to inject a sense of responsibility to socialites. Running away from this necessity would be tantamount to tying a rope on our necks. Social interaction should be free, but should also have a sense of treading over thin ice induced in it, reason being, too much enjoyment of one's rights could mean infringement of another's rights. Anyway, lets be mature enough to allow everyone to be free and enjoy social media without any compromise. Maybe if we did so, we wouldn't need lawyers litigating in courts on matters concerning trivialities.
Meet you on the circles, enjoy, won't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment
please feel free to leave your comments.