France’s fake-news fight a tough task
Should fake news be outlawed?
Could fake news be outlawed?
It’s a delicate subject, and the myriad questions about whether such a thing is possible and what the consequences might be have a lot to do with how you define “fake news.” Many freedom-ofspeech advocates are quick to declare such a bold legal step would be difficult to create and impossible to enforce, but that hasn’t stopped French President Emmanuel Macron from pursuing a new law that would ban the dissemination of false information related to election campaigns.
France is one of many nations whose politics have been infected by foreign (read: Russian) mischiefmakers intent on influencing voters’ behaviour and altering the outcome of elections. Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election has been the subject of ongoing debate and denials since long before U.S. President Donald Trump was elected, and a recent U.S. congressional report states there have been Russian-backed efforts to undermine electoral politics in 19 European countries since 2016.
In the case of France’s 2016 election, Mr. Macron’s campaign suffered a major hacking attack, though government officials were unable to definitively prove Russian involvement. The Kremlin-backed Russian news service RT favoured the president’s rival, far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, and another Russian outlet, Sputnik, circulated a rumour during the campaign that Mr. Macron was involved in a homosexual affair.
The French president used his New Year’s press conference to announce he will proceed with anti-fake-news legislation. Among the first to object, not surprisingly, was RT. The head of its recently launched French-language channel said Mr. Macron’s effort “could be just the beginning of actually censoring freedom of speech,” and added, “We believe it is a very dangerous situation.”
Mr. Macron’s proposal would enact a digital-age update of France’s already-existing laws regarding the dissemination of false information. Tougher transparency standards would apply to digital platforms, requiring them to disclose specifics about their ownership, financing and the sources of their “sponsored content.”
Germany adopted its version of a fake-news ban on the eve of its federal election last fall and Italy has a similar initiative in the works.
A legislated restriction on false information distributed with nefarious political intent would be controversial, but the theoretical dangers foretold by naysayers must be balanced against the very real perils posed by so-called fake news, as well as its already-proven impact on democratic processes.
Lies and deception have always owned a piece of the political landscape, but the rapid and expansive manner in which false information is distributed, with ruthless targeted efficiency, in the social-media age requires a thoughtful and precise response.
In other words, a 21st-century solution to a 21st-century problem.
Legislation within national borders is unlikely to put a dent in fake news; a global approach is the only hope for an effective curtailment of online political mischief-making.
Of course, democracy-watchers are correct when they say limiting information has its slippery-slope dangers. Much depends on who does the banning, and what is actually being banned. There is, in fact, currently a democratically elected government whose “truth” agenda involves stifling legitimate news reporting in favour of an arms-length brand of pandering propaganda that tells its audience only what the government wants it to hear.
There’s no small irony in the notion that the administration that claims to have coined the phrase “fake news” is the one least inclined to do anything about it.