Slippery slope
Proposed legislation to fight fake news is a slippery slope toward narrowing the space for democratic participation. Even the Straits Times of Singapore, a city state not exactly known for complete liberty of speech, calls for a measured approach.
Consider the existing law, Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code: It is unlawful for any person who "by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State."
The provision falls under Chapter 5, Title 3 on Crimes Against Public Disorder. This matter is significant because it tells you that the current law on false news protects public order. False news, to be considered a crime, must not be just any kind of fake news. It must be news not only deliberate, but actually calculated to sow public chaos, disorder, or endanger national security and the foundations of organized society.
Read together with the doctrine reiterated by the Supreme Court in such cases like Chavez vs. Gonzales (GR#168338, 2008), the requirements for such qualifier to kick in is even made stricter. The Court, speaking through Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, said: "Freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right to free speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it."
Curtailing speech cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, the Court said, "but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground." The evil consequences sought to be prevented must be "substantive, extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high," with the government having the burden to prove that imminent evil it seeks to prevent.
That is the current legal environment standing in the way of those who push for more "responsible speech." This could be why some legislators are proposing laws to limit this liberal space. Senator Joel Villanueva's Senate Bill 1492 seeks to penalize fake news defining it as "those which either intend to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, and hate, or those which exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one's reputation."
There lies the danger in overbroad legislations like this. They could later turn out to be even worse than the evil they seek to fight. They could easily become tools for wannabe-tyrants to silence critics or suppress contrary views. And it is not the censorship or imposition of penalty that actually curtails free speech but the chilling effect it creates.
Just look at what is happening today. Leaders and influencers in opposite sides of this highly-charged political atmosphere conveniently call stories or speeches unfavorable to them as fake news. A pattern of biased media coverage is easily singled out as one trying to "exhibit propaganda to blacken a reputation" or one which tries to sow division or hate.
I may be against new restrictions, leaning toward keeping the current liberal legal environment of free speech and self-regulation. But I am open to suggestions on how to address the evils of fake news through positive policy action and legislation. Promoting media literacy, for example, can be one of the most effective ways to blunt the effects of fake news and disinformation.
But whatever our views are, wherever we are coming from, it is important that we participate in the ongoing discussion.
- Latest
