THE RECENT hearing last week on Fake News felt tedious, if predictable. Many of the emotions, accusations and talking points reminded me of a wider debate that has gone on for decades: How do you preserve Free Speech while protecting the Public Space from Fake News / Misinformation / Disinformation / Information Warfare.
The short answer is that there is no solution to this debate, only tradeoffs. If we prioritize free speech, we must accept the risk of Low-Quality / Weaponized Information entering the public space.
On the other hand, too much protection from the latter will lead to the erosion of free speech, and may even spark the rise of political censorship. Some may recommend a middle way approach, but that’s easier said than done.
Western countries have tried to deal with this issue with Hate Speech Laws. “Free Speech is not hate speech”, as they used to say. It seemed like a good idea in the past but today, such laws are considered censorious in many parts of the West.
The same formula can be applied here: “Free Speech is not false speech”, but I think the result will be the same: Many people will eventually consider that rule as censorship.
The internet has democratized the flow and production of information and when you democratize things, chaos emerges. From this chaos, emerge unspoken and unexamined truths as well as a lot of lies, both intentional and unintentional.
Again, there’s no easy answer to this debate and a blunt instrument like legislation will likely exacerbate the situation further. Whatever solution there is must go deeper than law. It must go on the cultural and moral level, and those are much harder to achieve because the flow of information is now too fast, too unstable, and that very same speed and instability is affecting society.
Again, there are no answers to this; only trade-offs. Do we use the clumsy fist of the state to control speech or do we suffer the chaos that comes with a relatively open public space?/PN
