Is fake news protected speech? Law defining fake news is crucial

order or may cause damage or credit of the state.”

Congress would like to be more specific and in a way to expand it. But Sen. Joel Villanueva’s SB #1492 does not define fake news while Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Raymond Villafuerte’s HB #6622 considers as fake news the errors in reporting and editing, even if done with no malice or without knowing they are false.

The legal definition is crucial. Most journalists advocate freedom of the press but also embrace accountability. They accept laws on libel, contempt and inciting to sedition, which are unprotected speech. But they also resist state intrusion that frustrates their work as journalists. CCPC definition The CCPC definition in effect tells legislators and the public (a) what fake news is and (b) when it violates journalistic norms.

CCPC’s work on defining fake news is no idle academic exercise. It hopes to give this insight to Congress: Lawmakers may rearrange the lines of “non-protection” on fake news but they shouldn’t make them more draconian than libel law and other existing laws regulating media.

The CCPC definition does not condone mistakes committed in heat of deadline. It considers those errors violations of journalism standards, which must be avoided as much as possible and corrected when they occur. But it disagrees that those violations, unless committed with malice, are lumped under “fake news” and made criminal. What SC doesn’t protect In the case of Francisco Chavez vs. Secretary Raul Gonzales and National Telecommunication Commission (GR #168338, Feb. 15, 2008), the Supreme Courts lists the four kinds of unprotected speech, which are exceptions to the general rule of unabridged freedom of expression: [1] pornography; [2] false or misleading advertisement; [3] advocacy of imminent lawless violence; [4] danger to national security. Fake or false news, under the existing law (Art. 154, RPC), may fall under #4 in the above SC list, if Congress or the SC considers “public order” a part of “national security.” But fake news is already regulated by law, thus taking it out of protection. Confusing prior restraint It doesn’t mean though that the doctrine of prior restraint does not apply to news on mere claim that it’s fake. Courts cannot stop publication on mere allegation that it is fake or false. Just as they cannot ban a news story because it is claimed to be libelous. But once the story is published, journalist and media outlet will answer to any complaint or lawsuit over the story.

That’s what Dutertes spokesman Harry Roque has apparently confused: exemption from prior restraint with exemption