Private sector as moral police?

Should corporates be the moral police? When hate speech and racism is spread via social media, the scourge is almost impossible to stop but can have very serious repercussions. At times like this the Government and formal law enforcement authorities could be unable or unwilling to bring the offenders to book. At such a time corporates can take remedial measures, but it is a step that comes with consequences.

In a landmark move, an employee of a respected Sri Lankan company was suspended for a month after an inquiry found him guilty of spouting racial hatred and sexually derogatory remarks on Facebook. This is the first time in Sri Lanka where a private sector company has taken action against an employee over his adverse conduct on a social media portal. Should other corporates follow in their footsteps?

At the inquiry conducted by the Human Resources Department of a tourism company – Eco Team Ltd. – the employee was found guilty and suspended from work for a month. CEO Anuruddha Bandara had told a newspaper that Eco Team would educate and counsel the employee on fostering core company values.

The stance taken by the company was that the employee’s personal views had a negative effect on his professional workspace and that it could not be allowed. But if this stance is to be widely implemented, then it would also mean that companies can have influence or control over the private lives of their employees. Such a breach of privacy and individual freedoms could have serious repercussions if careful lines are not drawn to make sure that neither the corporate nor the employee oversteps their boundaries. But this is easier said than done.

It cannot be denied that with the advent of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) and other hardline organisations in Sri Lanka, the social media space has become a cesspool of racism. The number of derogatory racist remarks and tokenisation of religions and individuals, the warping of the diverse history inherited by Sri Lanka and spread of virulent and often inaccurate information to whip up racial hatred are on the rise.

During the much-publicised Halal controversy, social media was used to malign certain products and urge users to boycott shopping at popular Muslim shops. These posts are accompanied by insulting remarks that make reasoned argument or discussion impossible. They are also anonymous so holding people accountable is difficult.

More recently people, especially women, who participated in an anti-BBS protest were targeted online with many insulting and sexually explicit remarks made about them. Some were threatened while all had their privacy destroyed. Many individuals on Facebook and other forums actively encourage others to enact similar insults on people who disagree with their views. Should people who have no respect for the freedom of expression enjoy that privilege?

For freedom of expression is a privilege. The right to obtain and share information is an important part of civilisation; one could argue that it was the start of civilisation and the centre of it too. The ideal of social media is to achieve the absolute democratisation of information, to give a platform to empower the individual through seamless and uncensored information sharing.  But what happens when the information is of the wrong kind? Where does one draw the line when the remarks are racist, insulting and derogatory? If the result is another communal war, should not such practices be stopped? So far more questions than solutions have cropped up, but one has to credit this company for taking a positive stance and perhaps it lights the way for the rest of the private sector to take a more proactive role in protecting the diversity in their community.