LETTERS: Agencies shouldn't block social media users

Since its launch 12 years ago, Twitter has gained momentum in terms of usage by the public. According to statistics, Twitter averaged 326 million active users at the end of the third quarter of 2018.

In Kenya, the use of social media platforms has been growing with increasing internet penetration.

In a bid to bring services closer to its citizens, the government has created a presence on social media through the creation of twitter handles for various state departments and public officers.

However, this has been mired by challenges that threaten fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

On January 2, the official twitter handle for the State Department of Immigration, Border Control and Registration of Persons (@ImmigrationDept) tweeted the requirements for application for the new e-passports.

This was not well received by Kenyans who were quick to air their grievances in response to the tweet. It was shocking to find out that one user had been blocked by the account after posting a comment.

Many Kenyans have since come out to complain that they have been victims of the ‘block button’ from various government official handles. This is just but one example of such a case and it becomes hard to demystify as our laws do not provide for the management of such online media platforms by government entities.

This is made worse with the lack of social media policy guidelines for state officers and departments. Government presence on social media is expected as it creates a sense of accessibility and just like any other public office, these activities are funded by taxpayers’ money. Blocking someone from accessing such an account is tantamount to infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms.

To understand how one’s rights are infringed, it is imperative to know what the block feature on Twitter does.

According to the official Twitter help page, the block feature “helps to control how one interacts with other accounts. It helps users in restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their tweets and following them.”

When one is blocked, they cannot follow the blocking account, view tweets from this account when logged in, send direct messages or view their profile. Limiting a Kenyan citizen from accessing these features on a public twitter account infringes on the following fundamental rights and freedoms;

When this is done on a public Twitter account, it limits one’s ability to give views on posts that are made. This violates freedom of expression that is provided for in Article 33 of the Constitution.

This provision guarantees the freedom of expression for every Kenyan, which includes the freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas. A comment to a twitter post falls within this right.

Whereas Kenyan courts have not directly dealt with the blocking of persons from public twitter handles, the United states District Court had this opportunity in the Knight First and others vs Donald Trump and others case.

This suit involved the current US president whose penchant for tweeting is widely known. Through his official Twitter handle (@realDonaldTrump), the president either by himself or his handlers has been known to post policies and matters of general public importance that touch on the lives of Americans.

The suit was instituted by persons who were blocked from the account on various dates. In its ruling, the court concluded that “the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the president’s tweets -- are properly analysed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment.”

The US First Amendment is akin to Kenya’s Article 33, which guarantees the freedom of expression. This ruling, though not legally binding to Kenyan courts, goes to show how the use of public twitter handles when it comes to blocking can violate basic human rights enshrined in the Kenyan constitution.

However, it should be noted that the freedom of expression is not absolute and statements that are meant to incite violence, hate speech, propaganda for war or advocating hatred are not permitted. As such, one can be blocked for making comments that do the above and or affect the reputation of others.

Salim Ramadhan, lawyer, via email