“It is essential for the government to regulate social media by introducing laws that address the posting of fake news, the use of abusive language, and seditious comments,” excerpt of The Point Newspaper editorial on 3/3/2025. 

Editorial writers wield significant power in shaping public discourse. Their words not only influence public opinion but also spark critical thinking and guide policymakers. With this power comes an equally important responsibility: to advocate for solutions that uphold democratic principles and protect fundamental freedoms. 

However, The Point’s recent call for government regulation of social media, while well-intentioned, poses a grave risk to the very freedoms that journalists and editorial writers depend upon to fulfil their essential roles.  

Freedom of expression is the bedrock of any democracy. In the United States, even the most offensive speech is safeguarded by the First Amendment, underscoring a profound commitment to protecting individual liberties. 

While The Gambia operates in a different context—where laws against sedition address insults and hate speech—the underlying principle remains: regulation must never become a weapon of repression. The Point’s proposal for social media regulation could inadvertently suffocate freedom of expression, making journalists and dissenting voices the first casualties in this potentially oppressive landscape.  

The perils of government regulation are not merely theoretical; they are grounded in our recent history. The Yahya Jammeh era in The Gambia offers a stark and sobering reminder of this truth. The notorious “Nana Grey Johnson law” imposed draconian penalties of up to 15 years in prison and fines of D3 million (approximately $70,000) for crimes such as spreading false news or making derogatory statements online. 

This oppressive law effectively silenced dissent and instilled a pervasive climate of fear. Thankfully, the Adama Barrow government repealed this draconian legislation, paving the way for a revival of freedom of expression. To consider reintroducing similar regulations, as The Point suggests, is to court a return to those dark days we fought so hard to escape.  

The Point’s argument fails to acknowledge that existing laws—such as those governing sedition and the forthcoming Cybercrime law—already provide robust mechanisms for addressing online abuse and misinformation. Strengthening these existing frameworks, rather than imposing new regulations, would offer a balanced approach that protects individual freedoms while effectively addressing harmful content.  

Imposing government regulation on social media establishes a dangerously slippery slope. What begins as an effort to combat fake news and abusive language today could easily evolve into a tool for suppressing political opposition or stifling unpopular opinions tomorrow. 

The line between regulation and repression is perilously thin, and once crossed, it can be exceptionally challenging to reclaim genuine freedom.  

Instead of turning to government intervention, we should empower social media companies to self-regulate. Many platforms already enforce community guidelines and utilise algorithms to detect and remove harmful content. By enhancing these mechanisms through collaboration with independent watchdogs and civil society organisations, we can achieve meaningful outcomes without sacrificing our democratic values.  

While The Point’s editorial seeks to tackle important concerns, its proposed solutions risk setting the stage for a police state where freedom of expression is systematically curtailed. Democracy flourishes on the free exchange of ideas, even those that challenge the established order. We must steadfastly refuse to compromise our fundamental rights in the name of regulation; the stakes are simply too high.

Alagi Yorro Jallow is a veteran Gambian journalist and political commentator residing in the United States.