Whose slippery slope?

Last week, the Telecom Authority signalled its intention to shut down radio stations which air “unpalatable” comments. This the Authority certainly has the right, in law, to do. But we wonder whether the persons in charge have the competence to make such judgments. Take the view of chairman Ralph Henry. “We see what is happening and we are sure in what we hear that some of those stations are going to take us along the route to Rwanda and Burundi,” he asserted. This is a rather extreme — some might even say alarmist — statement. And, as such, it would have been incumbent on Dr Henry to quote specific statements or incidents which are incitements to racial violence or criminal action.

But this Dr Henry did not do. Indeed, the Authority’s spokesmen declined to name the five stations which, they said, had already been warned. But John Prince, the executive director, did cite one example of statements “that are not palatable.” This was a broadcast of a forum organised by the local chapter of the Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin in which, said Prince, one speaker suggested that one ethnic group was being urged to kidnap members of another ethnic group. Mr Prince’s choice is revealing. Because he did not name the station, the many people who do not listen to talk radio would naturally assume that the comment was made on one of the Indian format stations.

In fact, that forum was covered by I95.5, which is owned by PNM activist Louis Lee Sing. We do not think that Mr Prince was being deliberately misleading — indeed, it seems from his account that someone else brought the matter to his attention. But it is passing strange that, although the most offensive comments usually come from talkshow hosts on Radio 102 FM and I95.5, no examples were cited which pointed obviously to them. In other words, the question will surely be asked as to what biases the Board of the Telecom Authority will bring in deciding what stations would and would not be shut down.

But there is a wider question that the Authority would do well to consider before embarking on such drastic action. Is unpalatability a sufficient reason to shut down a radio station? If a society is committed to the principle of freedom of speech, then an inevitable consequence is that some people will say things that offend other people. The standard response to this argument has always been that freedom of speech does not give the individual the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded cinema. This is the import of Dr Henry’s reference to Rwanda and Burundi. But that is a slippery slope argument which has little merit.

The violence in those countries rested on centuries of tribal enmity and on radio being the only nation-wide media. Despite the real racial political divisions that exist in this country, and even despite Dr Henry’s surety, we see no signs that racial violence is about to explode. The Authority may be right to be concerned about the ignorance which is promoted on some radio stations. But, if they want to effect change, they need to find a less big stick method for doing so. Otherwise, they will only be imposing censorship and, given our country’s authoritarian history, that is one slippery slope which we don’t want to start sliding down.