A worrying habit is becoming increasingly visible in Ghana’s digital public space. On TikTok, X, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms, some discussions about national affairs no longer centre on ideas, policies or evidence. Instead, insults, degrading descriptions, false accusations and personal attacks are increasingly directed at ordinary citizens, public officials, traditional leaders, journalists, religious figures and political opponents.

Social media has undoubtedly widened public participation. A citizen with a mobile phone can question a public decision, expose suspected wrongdoing, share an experience or contribute to a national debate within seconds. This access has broadened opportunities for democratic participation and reduced the distance between citizens and those who exercise public authority.

Yet the same platforms that make public participation possible are also being used to humiliate, intimidate and damage reputations. For some content creators, abusive language has become a strategy for attracting views, followers and financial rewards. Personal attacks are presented as entertainment, while vulgarity is mistaken for courage. When such conduct becomes normalised, it weakens the quality of public discussion and erodes the respect that should guide relations among citizens.

Criticism Is a Right, But Expression Carries Responsibility

Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. This protection allows citizens to criticise government policies, question public expenditure, challenge decisions and demand accountability from those who exercise public power.

Public officials must expect scrutiny because their decisions affect the lives of citizens. Respect for authority should never be used to suppress legitimate disagreement, investigative reporting or public criticism. A democratic society cannot function properly when citizens are afraid to question their leaders.

Strong criticism should focus on the issue, decision or policy in question, while factual claims made in support of that criticism should be capable of verification. A citizen may describe a policy as ineffective, unfair or wasteful and explain why. Disagreement becomes less constructive when attention shifts from the issue to personal insults or degrading attacks against the individual responsible for the decision.

This distinction between legitimate criticism and harmful expression is also reflected in the Constitution, which places the enjoyment of rights within a broader framework of responsibility and respect for others. Article 12(2) provides that the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms is subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, while Article 15 affirms the inviolability of human dignity. In the specific context of media freedom, Article 164 also permits laws reasonably required, among other purposes, to protect the reputations, rights and freedoms of others. Together, these provisions underline a basic civic principle: the exercise of one person’s freedom should not disregard the rights and dignity of others.

Why Online Abuse Is Becoming Normalised

Recognising the distinction between criticism and abuse is only part of the challenge. It is equally important to understand why abusive behaviour has become so visible and, in some cases, increasingly normalised online. One explanation lies in the economics of online attention. Content that provokes anger often attracts more comments, reactions and shares than calm discussion, encouraging some users to rely on insults and controversy to increase their visibility.

This incentive can be reinforced by monetisation. Where views and engagement create income, outrage may become a business model. A damaging allegation may be published before it is verified because being first, dramatic or offensive appears more rewarding than being accurate. Corrections rarely travel as far as the original accusation, leaving the target to live with the consequences.

Beyond the economics of engagement, political polarisation also contributes to the decline in civility. Supporters sometimes treat political disagreement as personal hostility. Journalists, activists and citizens who express contrary opinions may be labelled, mocked or subjected to coordinated attacks. Instead of evaluating the argument, users attack the identity, appearance, family or background of the person making it.

Online interaction itself can further weaken restraint. People may type statements they would hesitate to make during a face-to-face conversation. A screen can create the illusion that the target is distant from the consequences, yet the person being attacked has a family, a career and a reputation. Online abuse can damage employment prospects, businesses, relationships and emotional well-being.

Consequences extend beyond those directly targeted. When prominent personalities gain popularity through insults, young people may conclude that vulgarity is a legitimate route to influence. Gradually, civility is portrayed as weakness, while aggression is celebrated as boldness. If this pattern becomes entrenched, attitudes normalised online can increasingly shape behaviour beyond social media.

Online Conduct Can Have Legal Consequences

Cyberspace is not a law-free space. A post, comment, livestream, audio recording or video can be preserved through screenshots, downloads and forwarded copies. Deleting the original publication does not necessarily remove the evidence or undo the harm.

False statements that seriously damage another person’s reputation may lead to a civil action for defamation. Ghana repealed its criminal libel and seditious laws in 2001, but a person whose reputation has been unlawfully harmed may still seek remedies through the courts. Depending on the case, a court may award damages, order an apology or restrain further publication.

Not every harsh comment automatically amounts to defamation. Legal responsibility depends on the exact words used, whether an identifiable person was targeted, whether the statement was communicated to others, whether it caused reputational harm and whether a recognised defence applies. This distinction is important because robust democratic criticism must remain protected.

Certain forms of online conduct may also cross into criminality, depending on the nature and circumstances of the act. Threats, unlawful access to computer systems or data, unauthorised disclosure of protected information and other conduct prohibited by law may attract investigation and legal consequences. Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), for example, addresses specified false or misleading electronic communications that are likely to prejudice life-saving services or endanger safety. The provision does not prohibit criticism or disagreement. Rather, it illustrates that certain forms of harmful electronic communication may attract legal consequences where the requirements of the law are met.

Ghana’s broader legal framework for addressing specified forms of harmful conduct in the digital environment also includes the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), together with other applicable laws. Importantly, the civic message is not that citizens should fear speaking. Rather, freedom of expression does not provide immunity for unlawful conduct.

Building a Culture of Responsible Digital Citizenship

Addressing this challenge requires more than legal remedies. Ghana needs a culture of responsible digital citizenship in which freedom is exercised with judgement, respect and regard for the rights of others.

Before publishing content, every user should ask three questions: Is it true? Can it be supported with evidence? Can the same point be expressed without degrading another person? These simple checks can prevent impulsive posts from causing lasting harm.

Content creators and influencers carry a heightened responsibility because their messages reach large audiences. Influence should not be measured only by views, followers or income. It should also be measured by whether a platform informs the public, encourages accountability and contributes to national cohesion. Creators should correct false information promptly, moderate abusive discussions and resist the temptation to turn humiliation into entertainment.

Responsible digital citizenship, however, cannot rest on individual users and content creators alone. Parents, schools, religious organisations, traditional authorities, civil society groups and the media also have important roles to play. Digital literacy must include ethical communication, verification of information, awareness of the law and respect for human dignity. Young people should learn that citizenship does not end when they enter an online platform.

Citizens can challenge leaders firmly, expose wrongdoing and demand answers without abandoning civility or respect for the dignity of others. Public accountability and responsible expression are not competing democratic values; they reinforce each other.

Freedom of expression remains one of Ghana’s most important constitutional guarantees and must be vigorously defended. But defending free expression also requires rejecting the mistaken belief that it is a licence for abuse, falsehood or intimidation. The strength of our democracy will not be measured simply by how freely we speak, but by how responsibly we exercise that freedom. Freedom of expression is a constitutional right; responsible expression is a civic duty.

Legal references: 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Articles 12(2), 15, 21(1)(a) and 164; Criminal Code (Repeal of Criminal Libel and Seditious Laws) (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 602); Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), section 76; Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038).

Communications and Corporate Affairs Department, NCCE, Accra