Silence wins with new Computer Misuse Act

One of the greatest casualties of the Computer Misuse Act of 2011 as recently amended, is social media and its accompanying freedoms. Already, the silence is reverberating on the apps. If the earlier shutdowns and Over-The-Top (OTT) tax didn’t turn us off the taste of ‘rumour mongering’ online, this amendment is the last nail in the coffin of expression. 
Sure, the makers of the law may get massive compliance in the face of the very visible consequences of breaking the law but the amended Act has also sown a great deal of confusion among online users. With no clear line of where open discussion stops and crime begins, many have simply opted for silence. As a result, while we have ‘rumour mongering’ under control, fear mongering has free rein. You would not believe the kind of messages people forward on WhatsApp on the lengths government will go to catch violators of the Act. In the face of this fear is a great retreat from conversation.

So far, because the net of potential culprits is cast so wide, more otherwise law abiding citizens are walking on egg shells than possibly thieves and axe murderers because investigation and arrest in cybercrimes is swift. Examples that have been prosecuted are enough warning to any intending violators. In that spirit, self-censorship has begun in earnest. Safe spaces for public discourse are slowly disappearing. Soon, one may only be able to trade ideas over the malwa pot at the neighbourhood pub and only provided you know your company well. Failing that, we shall revert to pre-social media settings, drink beer from under our beds and leave the apps to the brave and the untouchable. 

In online conversation, computers will quickly slip into disuse because of the gravity of likely consequences in case a word goes sideways or your neighbour decides that you have offended them in some way. Now before posting online, the dominant thought is whether one’s submission will get them picked up in a ‘drone’. It is such an evergreen threat that it is repeated often in online conversation. If you are foolish enough to ignore the warning, your peers will hasten to remind you. Finally, we are scared enough to stay away from computer misuse and it has less to do with the content of the law and more with the bogeyman hiding in the cupboard waiting to spirit culprits away to detention. 
Now that we are petrified enough to stop in our tracks, can we consider the negative effects of scaring large groups of the populace into silence? A time will come when those who can speak will do so but there will be nobody left to respond, except those who vigorously agree with them. And where is the fun in that? 

The signs of censorship are beginning to show such as people having to communicate in coded language and others simply signing off social media. Much has been said about the goodness that is in the amended Act. For instance, it aims to protect children from inappropriate exposure through sharing of their details without appropriate consent. Thereafter, those who imagined the amendment go on to stretch the need for consent to unprecedented levels. 
The speed of events in passing and enacting the law has not helped matters. Hardly had we heard that an amendment was coming than it was law, and with grave consequences. The discussion is grinding to a halt and some gains made in promotion of freedom of expression are being eroded. It is the end of social media discussion as we knew it.

Ms Nampewo is a writer, editor and communications consultant     
[email protected]