Each of us must advance the idea of media education as a remedy to increase freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, while at the same time moving away from offensive, denigrating, threatening language. Consequently, let's not see scenes of kneeling in the courts, as in the cases of Reshat Sadiki and Driton Maloku, who threatened MPs and ended up being charged and convicted for a word on social media.
Writes: Faton Ismajli
I
exiles Reshat Sadiki and Driton Maloku are victims of their words on social media. Both had come to enjoy themselves in their homeland. However, as soon as they entered the Republic, they were stopped and felt the hand of the state. They were tried and sentenced because, while they were in Germany and Switzerland, they took care to use social networks to threaten the deputies of the Kosovo Assembly. In fact, the emigrant residing in Bonn, in the threat against the deputy, had written that "Only the scythe can help."the former prime minister.
The threatened MPs used their legal right, sent the threats to the justice system and, of course, the state took care to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. A completely normal path, followed by elected representatives of the people. Each of us should do the same tomorrow, if we receive threats to our lives.
To clarify further, the state has a legal obligation to prosecute those who threaten and intimidate state officials without the need for a complaint. Whereas, intimidation and threats against citizens are initiated only if the citizen files a criminal report because he or she feels threatened or intimidated.
There are thousands of threats like Reshat's and Driton's every day, but those threatened, for many reasons, do not report the threat makers to the investigative bodies and, consequently, they remain unpunished.
Punishments have not been shown to be effective without being combined with other factors, including education. Not literacy education, because, most likely, the bullies are already able to write and make threats and intimidate people on social media. Education should focus on how to use the media, how to write on social media, what not to write.
II
Language is a tool, like a car, like a telephone, like a gun, like a railroad. Through language we send messages, information, thoughts, attitudes, insults, and can incite hatred and commit criminal acts. Language precedes almost every action. It even precedes war.
Like the car, the telephone, the gun, and the railroad, language can also perform bad functions.
Just because someone misuses their car, phone, or gun, we cannot a priori prohibit their use, but democratic societies have created rules and restrictions on how modern inventions can be used. Legal sanctions have also been adopted against all those who use language to threaten and intimidate.
Of course, with the current legal basis, the use of hate speech is not allowed, nor is the incitement of national, racial, gender or religious intolerance. Insulting language is not allowed either. In our country, there are laws that prohibit, restrict and provide for Convictions for those who use such language.
When someone uses language of national, racial, religious and gender hatred and intolerance, state mechanisms have the duty to be activated and prosecute the perpetrators of such criminal acts. When someone uses slander and insults, state mechanisms can be set in motion by someone who feels insulted or when they think someone has slandered them.
III
For what was said above, you will certainly be looking for examples. After reading the following lines, you will ask some questions and also look for solutions on how to avoid restricting freedom of expression, but also not to use hate speech or offensive or threatening language.
to) "Job" is the title of the song published after the end of the war. The lyrics of this song contain hate speech, derogatory language for a certain social group and for specific people. To form a fair judgment, you should read some of the verses of this song: "Ska ma shkije pa leje", "Ska ma popa te flliqt jovo shkije ma nuk ka", "Ska ma shkina me moustaqe qe dilshin në bazar", "Rada Trajkoviqi cecil në UNMIK e mjel", "Magjupt i kena përzanë, i kena çu në Serbia", "Në në rugore, shkija ma nuk ka". Based on the news of the time, the song was blocked by UNMIK to be broadcast in the media. You can still listen to this song today on various websites.
b) In Kosovo there was a newspaper called “Dita”. It was founded after the end of the war. It published a text entitled “When Petar becomes Peter.... " The article contained allegations that a member of the Serbian minority was involved in the massacres. A few days after the article and photo were published, Petar was found murdered. The media outlet was held responsible for this incident. Later, the same media outlet was closed down by international supervisors who had absolute power in Kosovo. There was no court case to prove that a Serbian citizen was murdered because of the article.
c) Known as the “March 2004 Riots”. Before the start of the roadblocks and the destruction of religious buildings by protesters, media reports had begun about how some Albanian children had confronted Serbs in northern Mitrovica. According to the Albanian children’s accounts, the Serbs had let their dogs loose and jumped into the Ibar River. Three of them died there, while the fourth child had survived. This entire story was broadcast by the media without taking the official side, without taking the other side either. In this case too, there were allegations that the media, namely RTK, was to blame for this event degenerating into violent riots throughout Kosovo.
d) Iqballe Huduti is an activist of a religious organization. In January 2020, she called for revenge, through a translated text, after the Americans killed an Iranian general. Huduti wrote on “Facebook” that revenge for this act is an obligation. Nine months later, the prosecution charged her with incitement to terrorism. At the end of 2021, she was acquitted of the charge. The court found that it was not proven that the accused had committed or intended to commit the criminal offense of abetting the commission of terrorist acts. In court, Huduti said that the text was not her opinion, but a translation, and the court found that opinions like Iqballe’s existed in other countries, messages that did not constitute a criminal offense.
"...they prove that throughout the world, there were opinions with similar and harsher content than the defendant's translated post on the social network "Facebook" and that none of these opinions posted on social networks and international media were considered as an incitement to commit criminal offenses or anything similar," the verdict states.
Consequently, her Facebook post has entered the domain of freedom of expression, even though we may disagree with her message. Freedom of expression has enabled anyone to say something that may be wrong in my or your opinion.
a) Lulzim Peci, A biology professor, hungry for fame and television appearances, from Vushtrri made news a few months ago. Not for the way he educates his students, not for any research into the plant and animal world, but for a mediocre dance. Now, I believe, everyone has forgotten that he ever existed. He used the right to freedom of expression, making public on “Tik-Tok” the way he dances.
Fjolla Ujkani, a government MP, reacted and described the videos as degenerate. After the reactions and support that the professor received, MP Ujkani apologized. It's good that she apologized and did not take any legal initiative to define what is good, what is education and what is degeneration, because if the government determines the public's taste, the taste of art, the taste of literature, the taste of music, then there is a risk that one day, the government will determine that watching films from the 90s is valuable and useful. This did not happen. It is good that it did not happen. It should never happen that the government determines what is tasteful and what is degeneration in art, culture, music and academia.
IV
When does freedom of expression end? A quick answer: Never. Because expressing an opinion should have no consequences for the one who says it and logically should have no consequences for the one who accepts it either.
First, we need to clarify WHAT freedom of expression IS and WHAT IT IS NOT, the most misunderstood, misused, and misinterpreted notion since the idea of free thought, free expression, and freedom of the media exists.
Misunderstood, because people, especially those with problematic and average education, do not understand the essence of freedom of expression.
Misused, because the powerful and the powerful have used freedom of expression to increase their power and diminish the rights of others.
Freedom of expression is misunderstood because people go to extremes to use this freedom, which then, if it turns into threatening, hateful language, turns into denigrating language and can turn into incitement to murder. A typical case of how the media is used to kill people is reflected in the film “Hotel Rwanda”, where murders are incited by the sound of the radio.
Freedom of expression is the right of a person to have a wrong opinion. The right of a singer to sing a banal lyric in his song. The right of an actor to play a completely useless role.
Freedom of expression is not if you defame, insult, threaten, intimidate, or call for racial, national, or religious intolerance.
For this reason, freedom of expression has also been limited by legal instruments, which have proven insufficient to prevent certain content from reaching the reader, viewer, and listener.
There is a better, more efficient solution to this whole problem, a solution that is not simple, which is education. Through media education, starting with children, pupils, students, expatriates, professors, in other words, the entire society would understand freedom of expression and the transgression of this freedom into criminal acts.
Media education would enable the creation of skills in social groups to deconstruct racist content, texts containing hate speech, texts that exceed freedom of expression, and language that causes violence. Consequently, each social group would be informed about the basics of how media and social networks work, as well as how to use them without breaking the law.
In this regard, each of us must advance the idea of media education as a remedy to increase freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, while at the same time moving away from offensive, denigrating, threatening language. Consequently, let us not see scenes of kneeling in the courts, as in the cases of Reshat Sadiki and Driton Maloku.
(Faton Ismajli is a professor at the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Philology at the University of Pristina.)