Media must balance freedom, responsibilities

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.