Dealing with Lies

The problem with that belief is that it undermines the veryfoundations of democracy. If you cannot believe your elected representativesthan what is the point in elections? They become no more than expensivepolitical theatre.

It certainly seems that the 21st century political arena isfilled with more mendacity than previous years, and the instances ofmisinformation and disinformation appear to be multiplying. The question is:How to deal with the increasing number of lies before they damage our politicalinstitutions beyond repair.

Adam Price, leader of the Welsh Nationalist Party PlaidCymru thinks he has the answer: Make intentional political lying a criminaloffence. That is an interesting idea, but not the right answer. Hit them whereit really hurts–in their bank accounts– by extending the laws of libel tosocial media.

Winston Churchill is alleged to have said that “a lietravels halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pantson.” In today’s social media world of the internet, trolls, hacks, cyberattacks and 24/7 news, a lie can be orbiting the North Star before truth eventhinks of climbing out from under the duvet.

The Internet is the greatest boon to freedom of speech sincethe Gutenberg press. Billions of people now have access to the greatest body ofinformation at any time in history. But every action has a reaction and theyare not always good. Even the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir TimBerners-Lee has recognised that his digital offspring is a mixed blessing.

There has been talk of regulating social media. Facebook’sMark Zuckerberg has been hauled before parliamentary committees on both sidesof the Atlantic and told that he has to find a way of preventing his cash cowdigital platform from becoming a vehicle for fake news. He has been told thathe should employ tens of thousands of editors to plough through every posting –which run to the 1.62 billion accesses daily–and remove anything that smacksof lies and hate speech. On Twitter there are 500 million daily tweets. Theirimpact is multiplied by retweets and republication on traditional mainstreammedia.

But forcing social media giants to police their platforms isnot the answer. It is a physical impossibility. And besides, under Section 230of America’s Communications Decency Law, social media platforms cannot be heldliable for postings published on their platforms. And as most of the socialmedia giants are based in the US, American law has become the global standard.But there is another possible solution using libel laws.

Under the libel law in most countries, If you tell adeliberate lie which causes damage to another person or organisation then youcan be sued for damages. If the lie is bad enough you may actually go toprison. Generally speaking the ones who bear the brunt of court action are themedia who reproduced the lie. Damages can run into the millions and there is alucrative industry for libel insurance. The situation is different in theUnited States where the First Amendment allows the media to say almost anythingthey want about a person as long as they are judged to be a public figure.

The internet has turned billions into reporters, editors andpublishers in their own right. All they have to do is write a blog, a paragraphon Facebook or 280 characters in a Twitter Tweet. They press “send” and theirthoughts and beliefs are winging their way to a potential audience the size ofwhich William Randolph Hearst could only dream. Yet—because of Section 230 andsimilar laws—they bear no responsibility for their musings.

Extend the libel laws to include anyone who uses socialmedia. Make them financially responsible for the consequences of spreading fakenews and hate speech. If they are forced to pay damages for irresponsiblecomments then they will think more than twice before pressing fingers tokeyboards.

There is one possible problem—the cloak of anonymity whichtoo many trolls don to hide their identity and protect themselves fromretribution. Here the social media companies can play a role. They cannot checkevery post, but they can check the identity of every user and insure that theyare who they say are.

None of the above is an attack on free speech. It is anattack on the abuse of free speech to insure that free speech and thedemocratic institutions that it underpins are protected.

Political journalist Tom Arms is a regular contributor.

Comments

Popular Posts