To prevent, or at least limit, the damage caused to society from social networks from time-to-time governments, civil society organisations and even social media companies themselves have introduced various regulatory and accountability practices. The Sri Lankan government has, as you may recall, imposed restrictions on social media in the past, and at the time of writing, is attempting to introduce legislation to prevent the circulation of “fake news”. We have also seen in the past as to how such laws can be abused to limit freedom of expression. 

 

However, it is doubtful whether a small nation like Sri Lanka can survive such negative impacts of technological hyper-connectivity solely by force of authority, focusing only on the effect, while leaving the causes unaddressed.  

Buddhism, considered by many – local and foreign alike - to be a humanistic philosophy, includes in-depth discussions on speech, freedom of speech, and engaging in self-restraint when engaging in speech. This is an opportune moment to study these teachings, especially when many Buddhist themselves are ignorant of them.  

There are four ways in which an individual can break the principle of virtuous or skillful speech, as per Dhammasangani – Attakatha (page 108)   

 

 

 False speech (musāvāda) Slanderous speech (Pisunāvāchā) Harsh speech (Parushāvāchā) Idle chatter (Samprappalāpā)   

If you are a follower of the Buddhist philosophy and the concept of rebirth, you can interpret the above four within the ten unwholesome actions (Dasa Akusala), that can result in unwholesome results (Akusala Vipaka) in a future life. However, even if you do not believe in rebirth, or if you are a follower of a different faith, or do not follow any faith at all, this guidance can be helpful to live a virtuous life, in the short time that we all stay alive. I therefore intend to discuss some of the Buddha’s teachings below hoping they can benefit all of us in some way.  

The first, false speech, according to Dhammasangani Atuwa, is verbal or physical actions with the intention of doing harm.  

 

 

“Musāthi visanvādana purekkhārassa aththabhañjako vachīpayogo kāyappayōgō vā; Visanvādanādhippā yena parassa parań visańvādakā kāyavachī payōga samuttāpikā chēthanā musāvādo”

(Dhammasangani Attakatha 109)

 

 

Saying one did not see what one saw; saying one did see what one did not see; saying one did not hear what one did hear; and saying one did hear what one did not hear falls within these unwholesome acts (Akusala Kamma). This of course includes writing as well. The Buddha has stated that someone who lies, can commit any other unwholesome act. A criminal can murder someone and say “I did not do it” and that would be a lie. But can that person stop the suffering of his mind, that will continue to linger on the crime committed?  

There are many who engage in online “False Speech” including “clickbait” and sensationalist reports as well as outright lies in order to increase the number of viewers and followers of their social media accounts.   

Ask yourself as to how many of such channels you have donated your precious time to, while you scroll up and down your screen? How many of these have deceived you? Have they been beneficial to you? Have they been beneficial to others?  

 

Second is Slanderous Speech. As per Atthasalini atuva, such words favour one against another (third person) and bring dislike towards the third person are considered slanderous. In this includes rumours and conspiracy theories we have about other people and communities which are shared with the intention of causing harm or bringing disdain towards another who is not present)   

 

 

“Yāyavāchāya-yassanań vāchań bhāsathi thassa hadaye aththanō piyabhāvań parassacha piyasuññbhāvań karothi sā pisunāvāchā

(Atthasālinī atuvā 109)

 

 

Slander is commonplace in social media. There are thousands of messages inciting violence, disdain and disgust towards particular communities and damage the trust and respect towards them. The attacked individuals and communities may face feelings of sadness and frustration, while the attacker as well as onlookers may suffer from feelings of aversion and antipathy all day. What benefit does such a turn of events bring?   

The third type of immoral speech according to Buddhism is Harsh Speech.   

 

 

“Yaapana aththānampi parampi pharusań karōti. Yāvāchā sayampi pharusā neva kannasukhā, na hadayańgamā ayań pharusāvāchā nāma”

(Atthasālini)

 

Atthasalini atuva enunciates this as “Such words, that make oneself and others harsh and hard, such words that are not agreeable to the ear nor appealing to the heart constitutes Harsh speech.”

Accordingly, social media posts designed to make the users’ “blood boil”can be termed as harsh speech. The danger of harsh speech can be understood from how Facebook has resorted to banning individuals and groups for disseminating posts harassing, or inciting hatred towards certain groups and identities – especially women and ethnic groups. Many try to evade such bans, by disguising their harsh content using seemingly “sweet” words – but this is not the guidance of the Buddha:   

 

 

“Parassa mammachchedaka kāyavacīppayōga samuttāpikā ekanta pharusachētanā pharusāvāchā  

(Attasālinī 110)

 

“the harsh thought, and words uttered with such harsh thoughts in mind, are indeed harsh”. (Attasalini atuva)

Therefore, even when sweet words are used, if one’s thought and intent is violent, such words are harsh.   

In Buddha’s teachings, the last of verbal unskillful acts is idle chatter ^iïMm%,dm&. According to Attasalini atuva, “Sampha’ ^—iïM˜& are words that destroy peace of mind. “ Pralaapa” ^—m%,dmh˜& is aimless chatter. Therefore, words that are used in aimless chatter, that destroys the peace of mind is what is meant here. Saddamopaayanaya discusses this as follows.  

 

 

“Nirthtaka kathā yāhi – rāga dōsābhi vaddhatī

Tań ratthassa akālena – bhāsanā sampassaññithā”

(Saddhammōpāyanaya 68)

 

“Talk that results in Desire and Hatred – are meaningless. Such meaningless talk, uttered with someone who indulges in such messages are referred to as ^iïMm%,dm&/ Idle chatter” 

Social media today is full of idle chatter. The word “gossip” is in the top 5 search terms on Google searches for Sri Lanka. Several “Gossip sites” are among the top 20 most popular websites in Sri Lanka. These create hatred and contempt towards women and particular communities. Such thoughts disturb one’s peace of mind. Although it can result in one becoming a temporary “hit”, the happiness derived from it is short-lived while the consequent suffering is long lasting.   

 

What has been explained up to now is what is given in Buddhist philosophy on regulating speech and expression. It is evident that even though there was no Internet in the Buddha’s lifetime, the guidance in the teaching is extremely valuable to inhibit the damage – to individuals and the wider society – that can be caused by one’s online speech.  

The Buddha’s guidance in this instance is still valid. In fact, present-day social network researchers employ an approach similar to the Buddha’s when classifying abuse of social networks.   

The digital handbook published by UNESCO for journalists (Handbook for Journalism Education and Training), lists 3 subcategories of false news in social networks:  

 

 

Disinformation is information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organisation or country. Misinformation is information that is false but not created with the intention of causing harm. Mal-information is information that is based on reality, used to inflict harm on a person, social group, organisation or country.  

It is evident that the experts who coined these definitions have given great emphasis to the thoughts, intentions - or objective – of the creator of such information, just as the Buddha did – although he defined four types.  

 

“Chēthanāhań bhikkhavē kammań vadhāmi.Chēthayitvā kamma karotī kāyena vāchāya manasā

(Nibbedhika Sutta)

 

“Bhikkus, thought itself is karma (action); Thought leads to action via body, words and mind”

We can see that the contemporary approach to setting parameters for regulating social networks is similar to the analysis of good verbal conduct in Buddhism. It would therefore be unwise to belittle or ignore this discourse in Buddhist philosophy.  

 

The above-mentioned technical terms introduced and published by UNESCO and other international organisations are globally applicable. Yet, these terms sound quite esoteric and strange to us. It is often difficult to even find corresponding terms for these words in the general Sinhala or Tamil vocabulary. However, our standard Dhamma school and School textbooks have included the Buddhist definitions of Speech, which discusses the same concepts expressed by the terms used by UNESCO. These Buddhist definitions are much more robust than the concepts for Social Media regulation presented by the West. They discuss and define virtuous speech and harmful speech as a much broader spectrum as opposed to neatly defined categories. Therefore, it would be prudent for social scientists and technologists who research and enact controls for social regulation of online harmful speech to refer and study the Buddhist philosophical approach in their work. 

 

Such a researcher may ask “what was the philosophical basis for the Buddha to give this analysis on Virtuous speech (or good verbal conduct)?” This type of academic skepticism is not unreasonable. However, the Buddha has presented an answer to such a question. This answer is found in the Kaalaama Sutta. This sutta discusses the free thought and regulatory principles of free thought that are one of the better-known aspects of Buddhism. Kaalaama sutta, of Mahavagga pali, Thika Nipatha in Anguththara Nikaaya (AN), was a sermon the Buddha gave to an erudite group called “Kaalaama”, who lived in a village called “Kesapuththaka”, who had difficulties filtering truth from untruth. This sutta, which also refers to speech, details how one should determine what is true and correct:  

 

 

 

(“Etha tumhe, kālāmā, mā anussavena, mā paramparāya, mā itikirāya, mā pitakasampadhānena, mā takkahetu, mā nayahetu, mā ākāraparivitakkena, mā dittinijjanakkhanthiya, mā bhabbarūpatāya, mā samano no garūti.” – Kālāma Sutta)

 

This provides the basic guidance for individuals on how to engage in self-censorship of their social media contents.  

One can ask “How do I determine the truthfulness of a certain message?”, which the Buddha has answered as follows;  

 

 

“yadā tumhe, kālāmā, attanāva jāneyyāta – ime dhamma akusalā, ime dhamma sāvajjā, ime dhamma viññugarahitā, ime dhamma samattā ahitāya dukkhāya sańvattantī, ti, atha tumhe, kālāmā,pajaheiyātha.” – Kālāma Sutta

 

“If it is unskillful, if it is wrong and blameful, if it is censured by the wise, if it leads to harm and ill, then abandon it” 

Yet, someone can raise a philosophical question “What is unskillful, wrong and blameful; on what basis are the wise engaging in censure of such speech, what does it mean to bring harm and ill?” The Buddha has provided answers to these questions within the Kaalaama Sutta itself. Buddha has stated that if an act is committed, based on one of the three defilements (Greed, hate or delusion), then such an act is unskillful and therefore wrong. Buddha in this discourse asks the “Kaalaamas’” to consider whether such an unskillful act could bring anyone any good. I would like to leave that same question with you now.   

 

In the same vein, even when one does not believe in rebirth and after-life, the Buddha teaches to avoid committing any wrong-doings done with the defilement roots of greed, hate and delusion, by considering the harm one can cause in one’s present life.  

 

Let’s take a simple example of a brand ambassador promoting certain food items, highlighting its quality and nutritious benefits. We know that such ambassadors receive large sums of money in order to do so. But what if these brand ambassadors as well as the promoter companies are actually deceitful and are creating false impressions? What if such food and drinks are in fact harmful for the body? Even if they can wriggle through loosely defined laws, can they really escape their conscience? Can they evade the social disgrace they would face? Those are the results of these actions that one will endure in this lifetime. On the other hand, one will be tormented by fearful thoughts of being reprimanded by law or by one’s own conscience. This is a form of suffering. This is why the Buddha advised us to refrain from doing such things. Therefore, whether in social networks, or outside of it, when people speak and express themselves, it is important to use self-restraint, that will do good for both the self and society. We can thus minimise the impact of the circulation of harmful speech on social networks.   

Apart from guiding individual behaviour on social media, these teachings provide an important message to policymakers who are responsible for regulating social media. This type of conduct cannot be remedied by regulations alone. Such regulations will only result in encouraging the unscrupulous perpetrators of cyber-crime to further their agenda through alternative strategies. It is impossible for policy-makers to keep pace with such a fast-changing environment of the Information Technology landscape, because policy-making is a slow process. As an example, in the aftermath of the Easter attacks in 2019, the access to certain social media networks was temporarily shut down. However, many simply used VPNs to circumvent the ban and continued accessing social media platforms regardless. This demonstrates the futility of legislative approaches to regulate social media. Therefore, it is imperative that the government acts to eliminate the causes that lead one to greed, hate and delusion. If the powers that be can facilitate the peoples’ economic prosperity, ethnic harmony, rule of law and social justice, then the government will be able to regulate the false and hateful messages that disseminate via social media networks. Attempting to treat the symptom (or the effect) without tackling the root cause(s), will only result in the symptom getting worse – as is explained by the doctrine of Cause and Effect (hētupalavādi nyāya).