Debate continues over whether internet access should be considered a fundamental human right. Communication itself is essential, yet today’s constant connectivity can be overwhelming, and people sometimes choose to disconnect. Still, when governments intervene to cut communication, the consequences are far-reaching.
According to Agence France-Presse, the Central African Republic (CAR) has taken the step of banning text messaging after authorities linked waves of violence in the capital, Bangui, to coordination via SMS. The measure, reportedly ordered by Prime Minister André Nzapayéké, suspends SMS services for mobile subscribers nationwide.
In a letter sent to mobile operators, the CAR’s telecommunications ministry announced that “the use of any SMS by all mobile phone subscribers is suspended from Monday June 2, 2014, until further notice.” Initial reports suggested the suspension might last only a few days, but the official notice left open the possibility of a longer interruption before services are restored.
Communications Minister Abdallah Assan Kadré issued a statement relaying the prime minister’s directive, noting the suspension was intended “to contribute to the restoration of security in the country,” according to Reuters.
The immediate context for the ban includes mounting unrest directed at the government. In the days leading up to the measure, a grenade attack inside a Catholic church killed at least 15 people. Retaliatory violence followed: Christian youths destroyed one of the city’s remaining mosques and killed three Muslims who were on their way to an intercommunal reconciliation soccer match.
Residents attempting to send SMS messages now encounter an error notification saying “SMS not allowed.” Similar communication shutdowns have been discussed elsewhere: after the London riots, authorities considered limiting access to certain messaging services—such as BlackBerry Messenger (BBM)—which some believed had played a role in organizing the disturbances because of its encrypted, group-oriented features.
Supporters of such shutdowns argue they can disrupt the rapid spread of organization for violent acts. Technology journalist Mike Butcher, who also advised the mayor of London, has described BBM as “an encrypted, very secure, safe, fast, cheap, easy way for disaffected urban youths to spread messages for their next target. It’s like text messaging with steroids—you can send messages to hundreds of people and once it’s gone from your phone it cannot be traced back to you.” From this perspective, suspending targeted services can reduce the ability of violent groups to coordinate quickly.
Opponents counter that cutting communications harms ordinary citizens, preventing them from contacting family, accessing emergency information, and ensuring their safety. Human rights and civil liberties organizations warn that blanket suspensions can be disproportionate, impede humanitarian response, and erode trust between communities and authorities.
Joanne Mariner, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International, said that during a visit to the Central African Republic earlier in the year she observed “a definite possibility of at least some attacks being coordinated by phone.” Her remarks acknowledge that phones can play a role in organizing violence, but they also form part of a broader debate about the appropriate balance between security measures and protecting civilians’ rights.
The CAR’s SMS suspension highlights a recurring dilemma for governments facing unrest: how to curb violent coordination without unduly restricting the everyday communications that citizens rely on. Such measures raise legal, ethical and practical questions about proportionality, oversight, and the longer-term impact on public trust and civic life.
Do you think the CAR government made the right decision to ban SMS? Let us know in the comments.