The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Internet Governance|Four questions must be answered before enacting the "Fake News Law"

2021-10-27T23:14:05.430Z


After the proliferation of fake news in the anti-amendment turmoil in 2019, and then looking at the chaos of the world’s online information, I believe that the destructive power of fake news and false information in the society has long been seen for all, and we all understand that we really need to deal with it seriously.


After the proliferation of fake news in the anti-amendment turmoil in 2019, and then looking at the world's online information chaos, I believe that the destructive power of fake news and false information in society has long been seen for all, and we all understand that we really need to deal with it seriously. Legislation is understandable.

On October 6, Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor issued the last "policy address" of the current government, officially proposing the need to face up to issues such as "fighting fake news and safeguarding cybersecurity", and will be handed over to the Chief Secretary for Administration Li Jiachao to conduct a comprehensive review. The work of activating, revising and enacting relevant laws.

However, the "fake news law/fake information law" is a big deal. When the SAR government is studying legislation, there are still a series of questions that need to be answered.


Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor went to the Legislative Council to read out the last policy address of the current government on October 6, and formally proposed the need to face up to issues such as "fighting fake news and safeguarding cybersecurity", and will be handed over to the Chief Secretary for Administration Li Jiachao for a comprehensive study Law.

(Photo by Luo Junhao)

Question 1: How to define "fake news/fake information"?

The current society is indeed flooded with too much "paradoxical" information, and there is no shortage of such information to incite hate speech. However, since the government has not paid much attention to related issues in the past, there is no specific explanation for the interpretation of the term "fake news". In recent years of politicization, "fake news" has even become a rhetoric used by one camp to attack another camp, regardless of the authenticity of its content.

Therefore, if the definition of "fake news" is too abstract and vague, it will not only cause disputes between the police and courts in the enforcement and trial process, but will also have a practical impact on news and Internet freedom, making people mistakenly believe that the "fake news law" is The government's legal weapon to obliterate dissent and restrict freedom of speech.

Therefore, the government must clarify the so-called "fake news" definition before enacting legislation.

What is generally referred to as "fake news" can be understood as maliciously distorted, fictitious, or disguised as information-this sounds natural, but it is often difficult to distinguish in reality.

Hu Xinli, an assistant professor at the School of Communication of the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, pointed out to "Hong Kong 01", "For example, he deliberately staggered the background of time and space, compared two photos, and then told you that the police are like the Imperial Japanese Army. Although he (the two) photos are both It is true, but his intention to guide, is it considered (creating fake news)?"

Therefore, many communication experts, like Hu Xinli, believe that if the law is to be regulated, the term "fake news" should be abandoned and replaced by "fake information", and whether the creators and disseminators deliberately mislead the relevant issues. The factual information uses the bad motives and intentions of inciting the public as the basis for judgment.

Indonesian election: Social media is quite common in Indonesia. The country ranks fourth in the world with Facebook users, and has become a "fertile soil" for the dissemination of false political news and information. Fake news involving ethnic and religious issues has become the best way to influence voters. .

The picture shows Joko Widodo taking a selfie with his supporters.

(Getty Images)

Question 2: In what way is "fake news/fake information" regulated?

How to regulate "fake information" is also a question that the SAR government must answer.

At present, some countries advocate that online platforms should be managed by themselves, while others believe that the government should regulate them uniformly; some hope to take the form of "post-penalty" to require publishing platforms to delete illegal content, and some strongly advocate "pre-restriction" censorship measures. All harmful information is culled in the bud.

For example, Internet platforms such as WeChat, Weibo, and Baidu in the Mainland use technology to censor the content of users’ posts, or even build a network "Great Firewall" to block, block, and close content that does not meet official requirements. "Pre-restrictions" approach to maintain network security.

Another example is that the Indonesian government banned social media such as Twitter and Facebook for a week after the 2019 presidential election to curb the spread of dissatisfaction with the election results.

However, this approach is often criticized by liberals for "destroying online freedom", worrying that when the government completely dominates the cyberspace, it may lead to the homogeneity of ideas in the long run, which is not conducive to the diversity of ideas and the diversity of speech.

Therefore, the American civil rights organization "Electronic Frontier Foundation" (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has worked with different NGOs to formulate the "Manila Principle on Intermediary Liability" and the "Santa Clara Content Review Transparency and Accountability System". "Santa Clara Principles" mean that social platforms provide transparent and fair standards when censoring speech. It advocates that all censorship mechanisms must face other oversights and reduce the degree of harm to online freedom by legislation. It is hoped that netizens can freely use the Internet to speak out.

Its proposition is embodied in the regulatory thinking of "fake news" in the United States, Germany and other countries, and has limited exemption from the legal liability of online platforms.

However, the above-mentioned principles mainly emphasize the standards that the government needs to accept in regulating social platforms and the neutrality of network service providers, but they cannot effectively prevent the problem of false information from undermining social stability.

Therefore, more countries and regions have chosen to legislate to regulate networks and deal with the issue of fake news. According to online statistics from the Poynter Institute, an independent organization that promotes the development of journalism, 28 countries and regions have chosen to legislate to arrest and punish rumors. (Picture 1).

In these 28 countries and regions, in order to avoid overly broad definitions of "fake news", some governments often make "cut piece" legislation for a certain type of malicious "information" to more accurately identify and examine "intentions." "Fake news" that misleads the public.

Hu Xinli believes that this form of legislation can avoid "guns and birds" and can minimize the damage to citizens' freedom of the Internet and freedom of speech.

But there is no shortage of countries that use "special laws," that is, special "fake news laws," to regulate misleading online information.

For example, France established the "Anti-Information Manipulation Law" and "Anti-False Information Law" in response to the issue of "fake news" during the election period.

The Hong Kong government also intends to formulate a "special law" on fake news.

Question 3: How to balance "national security" and "freedom of expression"?

Some commentators worry that the SAR government might use "national security" as an excuse to enact a borderless law to strictly regulate "freedom of expression" including "freedom of the press."

Hu Xinli said that from the perspective of protecting the journalism profession and the public’s right to know, he suggested that the SAR government’s legislative work should adopt three major principles: first, the "principle of proportionality", that is, the "principle of proportionality," so as not to "kill chickens with sledgehammers"; It is the "obvious and immediate danger principle", which needs to be regulated according to the degree of harm of false information; and finally, the "news professional principle" to exempt professional news media from responsibilities.

The "principle of proportionality", that is, "kill the chicken with a sledgehammer", can be divided into three elements: first, suitability, that is, the measures are suitable for achieving the expected goal; second, necessity, if there is one The less restrictive method is equally effective, so this method should be adopted; second, proportionality in the narrow sense, that is, the relevant measures should not be disproportionate to the target.

Hu Xinli believes that when the government uses "national security" or "public order" as grounds to legislate to regulate civil rights such as "freedom of speech," if the "principle of proportionality" can be used, restrictions on related freedoms can be minimized.

Hu Xinli suggested to refer to the "Clear and Present Danger" (Clear and Present Danger) to determine whether the "fake news/fake information" is sufficient to constitute "harm to society."

For example, in 1919, the U.S. Federal Court deliberated the "Boycott of Conscription" and circulated cases criticizing U.S. conscription for unconstitutional and boycotting of conscription in order to protect rights. Chief Justice Holmes proposed the principle of "obvious and immediate danger"-"When a crowd is very crowded In a dark theater, there was clearly no fire, but you shouted "Fire Candle" over there, and your remarks might cause everyone to panic and trample. This is not "freedom of speech" because you will cause "obviously and "Immediate threats", or including inciting others to commit crimes, if you let others commit crimes immediately, the law will prohibit them.”

Hu Xinli, an assistant professor at the School of Communication of the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, suggested that the government can apply three principles when making legislation.

(Provided by interviewee)

Question 4: How to protect the "news profession" and "the public's right to know"?

The news industry is generally worried that legislation against "fake news/fake information" may affect the public's right to know.

Hu Xinli also believes that if the reporter is out of newsworthiness and the public’s right to know, and reports without knowing that the relevant information is not true, and even has done its best to fulfill the duty of fact verification, then the law should be exempted.

He cited “Responsible journalism” as an example when dealing with defamation cases in the United Kingdom: “Defamation is originally an individual who makes false statements to others or companies, and then damages the reputation of others. Such a process is actually inconsistent with Providing false content is similar. The UK has proposed the principle of journalism to conditionally exempt the media from liability for defamation."

"Once legislation is enacted, on the one hand, the government can restrict questionable speech, but it also restricts the government from monitoring people or using these laws indiscriminately. To a certain extent, it also protects freedom of speech." Hu Xinli described, "Fake news/fake The enactment of the "Information Law" is equivalent to handing over the power to determine the truth to the court. The court can call "friends of the court" and different third-party fact-checking agencies and news organizations to testify at appropriate times to determine the authenticity of the news.

However, since it is the "professional principle of journalism," what should be guaranteed is the news media that can perform professional ethics, and this will inevitably involve how to define whether the relevant media is professional and whether it needs to be issued by the government for "media certification" or "reporter" "Licensing" dispute.

News media have a long way to go, and reporters need to be more self-disciplined to maintain the value of professional journalists and the news industry. Appropriate regulations can indeed help enhance the fair image of professional media, thereby increasing interview opportunities and protecting the public's right to know.

However, whenever it comes to "restraint" or "norm", there are always people who stand on the "moral high ground" at every turn and strongly oppose it in the name of "freedom", which causes the industry to be pressured and unable to form a consensus on this; and when the industry cannot "self-discipline" ", it is inevitable to "give the truth to the population"-if you cannot abide by the professional rules and fulfill your professional obligations, then why do you enjoy the "interview privilege" or even the "immunity privilege" that ordinary citizens cannot enjoy?

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2021-10-27

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-15T04:42:07.683Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.