Free speech clashes with business interests

COLUMN

Free speech is only free until the moment it does not touch the wounds. It applies everywhere. In the recent Olympic Games the episode about a particular journalist having got banished from Twitter after criticising NBC’s Olympics coverage in the US, is a proof that there are no borders for censorship.

Twitter was NBC partner for 2012 Olympics providing tweets from athletes, their families, fans and TV personalities.

To recap the fact, Guy Adams, a Los Angeles-based correspondent for British newspaper, The Independent, published several tweets criticising NBC’s coverage of the Olympics. The criticism was directed at the attitude of the news station that it did not broadcast live the opening ceremony of the Games. NBC chose to wait until the primetime.

In times where news comes instantly from the internet and social media, for American viewers, the NBC coverage came a tad late.

According to Twitter, the journalist was suspended for a message posted during the opening ceremony of the Games. This is what Adams wrote in his tweet: “The man responsible for NBC pretending the Olympics haven’t started yet is Gary Zenkel. Tell him what you think!”

His tweet then contained the work email address of Zenkel, the President of NBC Olympics.

Twitter contacted NBC and decided to suspend the account of the journalist in question. Although Zenkel’s email address was already public [since it was his official email ID], justifying the suspension was the fact that the journalist had published personal information about others on Twitter, which goes against the policy of using the network of microblogs.

Twitter, however, reactivated the journalist’s account later. But it was already too late by then as the case had already caught worldwide attention and gained prominence in media and blogs.

Since the Arab Spring revolution, Twitter is seen as powerful tool to mobilise people and became a symbol of freedom of expression. The microblogging is treated almost like a “public service”, similar to the electricity and water supply, something that cannot be taken indiscriminately from one person.

But the truth is that Twitter is a private company that has interest of permanent income and growth. However, it is clear that people have the expectation that social networking is always on the side of democratic values and freedom, and never take any action that put the users’ freedom of speech in the background.

The first social media Olympics experience was a disaster. Two athletes have been kicked out of the Games for posting controversial statements on Twitter. At least one other athlete had been reprimanded for using social media to name their sponsors, in apparent violation of Olympics rules.

Olympic lessons teach that commercial interest does not match with freedom of speech. The homework now is to find a way to make it work. Is it possible?