Responsible free speech should not be undermined - Tarai

The act of resisting the state’s agenda responsibly as a digital citizen of this country must be protected.

These were the words of Jope Tarai, a citizen who made his submission on the Online Safety Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Justice, Law and Human Rights.

Tarai says responsible free speech should not be undermined.

He gave the example of provisional election candidate Lenora Qereqeretabua using responsible free speech last year via online social networking sites to disagree on why there was a $35,000 COP23 celebration for those who were returning from Bonn.

Tarai had also made the submission that 6 to 7 months should be given for public consultations on the bill and a call for submissions should target and appeal to innovative means to digital communities that are forming rapidly online.

He says we must not deny the fact that account users are digital citizens and citizens are taxpayers who must be given a chance to be heard at least by further discussion on the bill.

Tarai says the bill introduces an Online Safety Commission whose functions appear to mimic the roles and functions administered by an already established body in Fiji which is the Cyber Crime Investigations Unit under the Fiji Police Force.

He says the Cyber Crime Unit already receives and investigates complaints on online crimes while the bill states that the Commission will investigate complaints.

Tarai says the bill duplicates already established functions of the Cyber Crime Unit. He says considering that the unit has had a number of years of experience, technical resource and staff, why not support that unit in terms of helping with its resource limitations as opposed to risking tax payers funds in duplicating its functions to form another Commission.

Under the Online Safety Bill, a person who posts an electronic communication with the intention to cause harm to an individual or the position of the individual, commits an offence.

In determining whether posting an electronic communication would cause harm, the court may take into account any factor it considers relevant, including the extremity of the language, images or videos used; the age and characteristics of the individual concerned; whether the electronic communication was anonymous; whether the communication was repeated; the extent of circulation of the electronic communication; whether the electronic communication is true or false; and the context in which the electronic communication appeared.