While the death toll exceeds 250,000 worldwide the majority of society finds itself in lockdown in a bid to fight the novel coronavirus. This has increased the importance of social media as the only avenue available to many for obtaining information and updates about the virus, not just about their own countries but globally as well.

Independent journalists have bravely reported on the way governments around the world have handled the situation in their respective countries. Some state responses have had adverse effects, with the implementation of information restrictions that may undermine the public trust.

IS MEDIA CENSORSHIP PROTECTING THE PEOPLE OR THE GOVERNMENT?

Prior to the virus outbreak a strict internet censorship was already imposed in China, known as The Great Firewall, which aimed at limiting the information that could be published or received on the Chinese web.

China has been aggressively criticised for their delay in reporting the outbreak of the virus to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and there has been speculation that the Chinese government was under-reporting the extent of the virus. Therefore, any information published about the virus has probably also been censored.

However, this has not stopped journalists such as Fang Bin and Chen Qiushi, from posting their online videos, pictures, and stories about their time under quarantine in China. The two journalists have since disappeared and no formal comment about their whereabouts has been provided. 

The UK are working on removing fake and harmful content that has been circulating on social media about the coronavirus. A Rapid Response Unit within the Cabinet Office was set up which aims to tackle the spread of misleading and false news. 

While removal of fake and harmful content will limit the spread of false information, it could also limit citizens’ access to information on how their elected government has dealt with the virus if the state unilaterally decides what information should be censored.

This will inevitably limit their right to information which could affect their decision-making in dealing with the virus as well, as their voting decisions in future elections. 

CENSORSHIP OF INFORMATION CAUSES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

The Trusted News Initiative is now working together with their partners (BBC, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft, AFP, Reuters, European Broadcasting Union, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Hindu, CBC/Radio-Canada, First Draft, and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism) to tackle the spread of harmful information. 

The issue here is that no definition has been provided about what content is deemed ‘harmful’ - it remains a subjective test. To remove or censor details which could possibly be vital information that the public should be aware of in order to assist them in tackling the virus is arguably an infringement of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

Where information is inaccurate, people have the ability to research further into the matter if they wish and to “protect’” those who do not carry out their own research may be seen as repressive. As technology is constantly evolving, especially in the current climate, it would be impossible to completely restrict information being published online, as there are so many different avenues for people to access information.

Therefore, the government should be proactive in ensuring that they accurately release important information about the virus and work with independent journalists in validating facts and figures. This would defuse any concerns about misleading information and instil public confidence in their government, whilst protecting the citizens’ rights under Article 19 of the UDHR. 

The United Nations Human Rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, expressed her concerns about restriction of information and said “rather than threatening journalists or stifling criticism, States should encourage healthy debate concerning its [the pandemic’s] consequences.” 

After having completed the Bar Professional Training Course (2018), Safia currently working as a Costs Advisor in a law firm. Her life goal is to make a positive change in the society we live in, no matter how small that change may be.

LinkedIn