Stopping fake news

It’s a debate that has raged worldwide since the dawn of social media: how do you strike a balance between freedom of expression and regulation of the willful spread of disinformation and malicious content online?

Public attention has been drawn to the issue following the explosion of fake news online since the arrest of Rodrigo Duterte and turnover to the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Interpol.

Last month, 17 vloggers asked the Supreme Court to stop a tri-committee of the House of Representatives from compelling their attendance at a hearing of the panel on fake news and disinformation.

But following Duterte’s arrest, an eruption of vitriol online against President Marcos, his government and his allies prompted the tri-committee to threaten with contempt and detention 11 vloggers and social media personalities who are based in the Philippines, if they continued snubbing the House hearing.

When the 11 finally faced the tri-comm last week, some of them were compelled to apologize for spreading what they admitted to be unverified and false news as well as for describing lawmakers as stupid. Among the fake news was the alleged mass resignation in the Armed Forces in protest over Duterte’s arrest.

The proliferation of unfiltered information on social media is one of the reasons why people should rely on mainstream media – where stories go through several layers of vetting and fact-checking before public dissemination – for news and information on current affairs.

This is what separates journalists from social media influencers and vloggers. But even journalists find it disturbing to see vloggers being compelled to apologize for calling public officials stupid.

All rights come with responsibilities, and the exercise of civil liberties must be balanced with the rights of others. Chief presidential legal counsel Juan Ponce Enrile weighed in with the view that “truthful information” underpins the exercise of freedom of expression.

“[This is] so that our people can make the right decisions on matters that affect them, instead of being manipulated to serve the interest of others,” Enrile said in a Facebook post.

Even this view, however, has raised concern among civil libertarians – perhaps partly because Enrile, the architect and enforcer of martial law under dictator Ferdinand Marcos, is not one to champion human rights.

In the case of print media, truth is not a defense in libel, which is a criminal offense in our country. Malice is the culprit; the absence of malice is the defense in the publication even of erroneous information.

*      *      *

Broadcast media have stricter rules on content, which are covered by their franchise. Penalties can be imposed for violations of the franchise regulations, which include prohibitions on pornographic or seditious materials or information.

The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) exercises regulatory powers over content in films and TV.

Broadcasters can also face a criminal complaint for slander or oral defamation under the Revised Penal Code. The RPC also has provisions against unlawful publication of false news, unjust vexation and inciting to sedition.

For online content, we now have laws against cyberlibel.

Having faced dozens of libel suits, nearly all of which were dismissed (with one or two still crawling along the legal mill), I can say that libel laws are generally skewed in favor of journalists; malice can be difficult to establish. There have been only a handful of convictions for libel in our country.

But litigation is tortuous and can be ultra-expensive.

More important than avoiding a lawsuit, journalism is a public trust, and the trust is anchored on truthful reporting. Delivering accurate and fair information in a timely and interesting way is our constant mission, and the only way we can ensure the long-term survival of journalism, regardless of the platform.

The existence of libel laws is being raised as a reason to clamp down on the willful spread of fake news and disinformation online. The argument is that if individuals can seek legal redress for unfair reporting and commentary, there must be accountability for sowing public confusion and social instability through false information – whether the motivation is political or financial gain.

But what can be done?

*      *      *

One suggestion, apart from tightening cyberlibel laws and promoting digital literacy, is to hit the malicious influencers where it hurts: in their pockets. Since they monetize their content, the Bureau of Internal Revenue can go after them.

This approach is also being eyed in compelling greater cooperation from the social media platforms, although this may be feasible only if they have offices in the Philippines.

Another suggestion is the crafting of a code of conduct for social media, which can then practice self-policing. All I can say is good luck on this.

Tri-comm member Jude Acidre says that among other things, the panel is considering setting up an oversight committee for social media, which can function like the MTRCB.

Mindful of community standards on the socmed platforms, the tri-comm is also eyeing civil and criminal liability for the willful spread of fake news that maligns the integrity of individuals and national institutions, foments social instability and compromises national security, Acidre told “Storycon” on One News yesterday.

Another suggestion is to flag fake news and false information as such – although who’s going to do this can be contentious.

The National Bureau of Investigation is not waiting for new legislation. It is going after the possible financiers and brains of what it sees as coordinated disinformation over the arrest and turnover of Duterte to the ICC.

Acidre told Storycon that the tri-comm wants to promote the responsible use of socmed and “create an ecosystem that builds on the strengths of social media.”

Even civil libertarians are expressing dismay over the flood of disinformation and other malicious content on social media. But we’re entering uncharted territory in trying to curb fake news. Let’s just remember to be careful what we wish for.