The menacing microphone: a stairway to where?

The pronounced objective of Red Radio was to "encourage discussions and exchanges of view on democracy". If this is the case, why are many people and the government becoming so concerned about it?

The Red station is part of a beehive of community radio stations originally sanctioned and promoted by Thailand's 1997 progressive constitution as an alternative to government-controlled stations. Initially bona fide community radio stations were operated with low-powered transmitters (no more than 10 watts) with a relatively small broadcasting radius. The stations required a tiny amount of start-up investment, as low as US$ 1,200(Bt40,000), and they represented an outlet for local grumbling mixed with local news and the usual community information. It is estimated that currently there are more than 5,000 local radio stations across the country, both licensed and unlicensed.

During the administration of ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, many community radio stations that expressed opposing views to the government and its policies were systematically suppressed. Local politicians of all colours then got the idea of community outreach, helped themselves to government funds, and joined the bandwaggon by starting their own community radio stations.

After the 2006 military coup, many community radio stations voicing opposition to the coup and/or exalting the virtues of the disposed prime minister became the target of a failed censorship effort by the military.

After the huge success of satellite-based ASTV (which made it beyond the reach of official censorship) in rallying support in provincial areas, it also became clear to politicians with competing interests then, that community radio stations were an important tool in winning the hearts and minds of locals.

One result of this shrewd awakening is that much more powerful transmitters, in some cases more than 100 watts, now power some of these once-local stations. Community and local radio stations themselves have become a political battleground for each and every party to garner political advantage, fair and unfair, pacific and violent.

And the air waves are becoming more toxic.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the British philosopher, who argued that the fullest freedom of expression was required to push arguments to their logical limits, also placed limitations on free expression based on what is known as the "harm principle". He argued that the only time when power can be rightfully exercised over the members of a community or society against their will is to "prevent harm" from being inflicted on others by deeds such as inciting violence and spreading lies and slander.

The Economist, in its July 23 article "Crackles of Hatred", gives a clue as to why people have a lot to be edgy about regarding poisonous air waves. It cited the East African country of Rwanda, where radio stations were used not only to stir up an atmosphere of hatred that led to the country's ethnic genocide, but also were used to direct the massacres.

From Kenya to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Bosnia, the world does not lack the ugly evidence of how this medium has been exploited and abused by 20th-century dictators, tyrants, warlords, Churches, and state and non-state actors - to the extent that it became an extremely dangerous mode of communication that bred hatred, violence, malignant rumours and myths, and even murder.

During the rise of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, Julius Streicher was a staunch Nazi and a publisher. His paper propagated hate messages against Jews; his words were his weapons. After the Holocaust, he was tried in an international tribunal and found guilty of "inciting the population to abuse, mistreat and slay fellow citizens."

The "red scare" of communism in the US in the 1950s was a time when hateful hysteria and witch-hunts swept through America. This was helped by a then relatively unknown senator from Wisconsin named Joseph McCarthy, initially as a way to get himself re-elected. McCarthy did not create the communist problem, he just shamelessly exploited it for political ends. For a period of ten years, neighbour was encouraged to turn against neighbour, and being a suspect meant that one was a traitor. Big names in Hollywood as well as government officials were blacklisted, and some would find it impossible to get work.

These days, President Obama has become the chief target of hate radio broadcasts. They accuse him of everything from being an alien (for allegedly being born outside of the US) to being a Satanist because his name in Hebrew echoes the sound of two words associated with the antichrist persona.

In the 1930s, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull complained that because of print and radio, a lie went halfway around the world before the truth had time to put its trousers on. Nowadays, it is said that due to technological advancements, lies go to Mars and back before anyone is half awake.

The question of when freedom of expression should be restricted is an age-old problem. This month, Wikipedia, one of the most popular sites on the Web, offering a free encyclopaedia of more than three million articles, announced that it was to begin imposing a "layer of editorial review" on articles about living people, as opposed to any freehand editing from anybody wanting to do it. Under the current system, it is not difficult to insert false information into a Wikipedia entry. In January of this year, someone changed the entry for the ailing Senator Edward Kennedy to report falsely that he had died (he passed away yesterday). In the end it seems, Websites such as Wikipedia that used to embrace the chaos culture are turning themselves into a more mature and dependable entity as they realise the impact they have had on society and the world.

In Thailand these days, hate radio and Internet sites have been proliferating like wildfire. It is unclear whether the government will find a way to create and maintain a good equilibrium between granting freedom of speech and protecting the public from being harmed by malicious misinformation that could ignite violent unrest and pandemonium that senselessly shreds the fabric of our society into pieces.