05/15/2025
Cybercrime/Cyberstalking Law vs Freedom of Speech
As a child growing up in Southeastern Nigeria, both family and neighbors sternly warned, and even gave me knocks on the head for daring to look straight in the face of any adult who talked to me. They accused me of being rude, unafraid and disrespectful of my seniors. In order to avoid further punishment, I grew up with that “injunction” to keep my head down when an elderly person is addressing me. Although my head was down, my mind was as erect as an obelisk.
As an adult mingling with other people from diverse cultures all over the globe, I realized that that particular childhood admonishment of bowing the head when an elderly person addressed me was, and remains counterproductive. Most cultures elsewhere would send a child to a therapist if that child would not look straight in the teachers’ or parents’ eyes. Some migrants who grew up in similar cultures as mine later learned, in a hard way, that it pays to look straight in peoples’ eyes when confronted with life’s realities. Some have failed interviews which they would ordinarily have aced. Others have lost court cases whose judgement they would have convincingly won. If an applicant is in an interview, and sparingly looks at the interviewer, the individual is presumed dishonest. Same applies to a plaintiff or defendant standing before a judge, and failing to make eye contacts.
Here’s my point.
I have seen draconian and antiquated laws – military and civilian – in ‘Our own dear native land’. But this law that results in the arrest, detention and criminal prosecution of anyone who literally looks straight in the eyes of government authorities and their family members is still confusing the civilized world. It becomes even more worrisome when a less-privileged citizen is incarcerated simply for expressing an opinion about another rich and/or influential citizen. In some cases, the only evidence the prosecutor needs is to tag it a cybercrime; bingo, the brother/sister goes to jail.
Concerned government agents and disgruntled individuals now liberally apply cybercrime and cyberstalking law to virtually any exercise of citizens’ freedom of expression on the internet. This criminalization of citizens’ views and opinions is replete with numerous dangers. One prominent aspect is that old foes could cite this law to settle scores. Business rivals could easily take advantage of this law. Grumpy neighbours who have an axe to grind could exploit this anti-viewpoint law.
Aside from the possibility of employing this law for personal vendetta, it has the potency to cause bottled-up resentments that could, someday, explode in the faces of its purveyors. A child who was not allowed to look into the eyes of elders is likely to grow into a rebellious adulthood because she/he was denied an opportunity for self-expression as a child. Developed countries are built on the foundation of dreamers – people whose opinions flourished because of their freedom to dream and express their dreams unstifled by legal entanglements. Scrutiny of government officials and their cronies should not be construed as the enemy’s handiwork. Citizens have an inalienable right to make constructive observation of government’s misdeeds, whether on or offline.
Truth be told, there are ignorant, idiotic, irresponsible, and misleading internet nuisances that must be checkmated or totally ignored. Any progressive society would simply ignore such people, and allow them to enjoy their fifteen-minute fame. A government agency saddled with public information should find appropriate sanctions for those ignorant big lying mouths who take delight in deceiving fickle-minded internet users. But a situation where virtually anybody could petition for the arrest of another free citizen is tantamount to anarchy. In other words, just petition, and a vocal opponent is taken away. This muzzling of freedom of speech is akin to a Shoot-at-Sight law.
For skittish government authorities or persons of influence, they either do it right or keep away from public service. Alternatively, they should borrow a word of wisdom from Peter Tosh:
“If you live in a glasshouse
Don’t throw stones
And if you can’t take blows
Don’t throw blows”.
