Media must balance freedom, responsibilities

By Dean Boulding

JAKARTA (JP): There have recently been a number of letters and articles in The Jakarta Post surrounding the publication of the article Ethnic Chinese responsible for riots. It seems rather pointless to debate the individual statements in the article -- pre-existing beliefs on either side of the debate are very strongly held and unlikely to be changed based on my writings.

Rather, the critical question, it seems to me, raised by this exchange, is not about prejudice itself. It is: "What happens when prejudice and freedom of expression intersect?"

Racism is simply one form of prejudice, or prejudgment. A racist is someone who believes that all members of a particular ethnic group are inferior in some way. We are generally most concerned with racism among the ethnic majority against minorities, as the reverse is less common and less damaging (as the ethnic majority generally has the power to protect itself, whereas minorities often do not).

Racism has an unattractive mix of costs and benefits. It is hurtful; it causes emotional suffering among its victims. It is economically inefficient because not all citizens are able to achieve their maximum output, the economy of the country as a whole shrinks, as do therefore the incomes of its citizens.

In extreme cases it can lead to civil war. It does all this harm while benefiting no one, except perhaps offering a brief reassurance to egos suffering from feelings of inadequacy. It is, in short, illogical, inefficient and hurtful.

In Indonesia at present racism is thriving; it is also dangerous. Despite the national motto "Unity in Diversity", there is little social unity and widespread discontent with diversity. One's beliefs cannot be subject to the law, but actions contributing toward violent outpourings of racist sentiment should be.

It therefore seems sensible for all of us here in Indonesia, pribumi, ethnic Chinese, bule or other to avoid fanning the flames of racism.

The right to freely express one's opinion on issues is among the most important in any functioning democracy, but it is not absolute. Many countries have laws limiting freedom of expression. The exact limits to be applied are widely debated and differ among countries. There are, however, a few common elements.

Firstly, one is generally free to write or say what one likes about other individuals. If the individual in question feels wronged, he is free to pursue damages in a civil court.

This mechanism provides a reasonable balance between the right to free expression and the right to go about one's business without having to endure slander.

Secondly, one's speech should not risk harm to others. The classic example of this is that one is not free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater without believing a fire exists. The ensuing panic could easily cause harm to other people, and society has a reasonable interest in controlling this type of free speech.

Thirdly, most societies have legislation limiting the right to publicize racist sentiments. There are several reasons for this. Large and diverse ethnic groups have little recourse to the civil remedies available to a wronged individual. Because it paints with a broad brush, racism harms individuals who are not personally guilty of whatever offense or character flaw is alleged. In extreme cases, the persecuted fear for their safety.

The balance a society strikes between protection of free speech and protection against prejudice is a fine one. It must be publicly defined and publicly debated if it is to have any moral force. The balance any given individual strikes may be different. While society has an interest in minimizing racism, ultimately individuals must take responsibility for their own actions in promoting or combating it.

The article debated so vigorously in these pages recently has been, I think, thoroughly discredited by many writers. It is clearly illogical, and prejudicial, to blame the many individual victims of looting, burning and gang rape for the crimes committed against them.

I do not wish to debate the accuracy of specific points in the article. It has been done more eloquently than I could hope to achieve, and I believe to debate prejudiced viewpoints is to lend them a credence they do not deserve.

If there are still those who believe it is necessary to engage in debate over the validity of specific accusations in the original article they are welcome to contact me privately. I believe the letters to the editor have overwhelmingly indicated that the readers feel the question has been settled.

A free press must be able to report all items it feels relevant, subject to limits relevant to protections of an individual's right, the presumption of innocence in criminal investigations and national security concerns. It must report facts as facts, and opinions as opinions. Freedom of expression is too important to be discredited by prejudicial half-truths and innuendo.

The media must strive to inform, educate and enlighten. A free press should not allow its freedom to be corrupted to propagate hatred against ethnic groups; it must not be used by stronger members of society to suppress those who are weaker. The press is a reflection of its ownership, management and community, and it should not reflect poorly on its community.

The press also has a responsibility not to contribute to the likelihood of civil unrest and violence. Encouraging racist sentiments and beliefs makes rioting more likely, an outcome none of us wants.

If one accepts the above of the press, the article in question should not have been published; The Jakarta Post has failed to balance its freedom with its responsibilities.

Racism will continue to exist where a tolerant majority stays silent; it will flourish where respectable publications give it a platform.