Walking the tightrope: Can laws tame disinformation, 'fake news' without crushing free speech?
MANILA, Philippines — Finding ways to regulate information online without infringing on free speech is like walking on a tightrope, an expert says. It’s a “delicate balancing act” that becomes even more precarious as lawmakers push for new legal measures.
With a legislative inquiry into disinformation seeking to craft laws to limit the spread of false narratives on social media, concerns over potential threats to free speech continue to grow.
For Grace Salonga, executive director of the Movement Against Disinformation, there’s a “thin line” between protecting the integrity of the information ecosystem and upholding freedom of expression.
Regulations against disinformation can be helpful, she said, but only if the public trusts the government to act fairly. If there’s any risk of abuse, the situation becomes unstable, and even valid criticism based on facts could be silenced.
“So ‘yung law, pag nag-create ka niyan, you’re giving power to the government. So dapat ‘yung power na ibibigay mo sa kanya, very clear ‘yung parameters,” she told Philstar.com in an interview. (When you create a law, you're giving power to the government. So the power that you give it must come with clear parameters.)
Salonga, who is also a lawyer, stressed that once such laws are in place, their impact depends largely on who enforces them.
While such regulations are “prone to abuse” — as seen in Russia and China, where laws have been used to censor critical and independent media and control the flow of information to the public — Salonga believes some level of oversight is still necessary.
“It doesn’t mean that we should not regulate. The real challenge is making the law very clear,” she said in a mix of English and Filipino.
Where to draw the line
Currently, the Philippines has laws criminalizing the act of damaging someone's reputation through false and harmful statements. These are classified as libel or slander. If these statements are published online, they fall under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
However, these laws have frequently been weaponized to intimidate and harass journalists, drawing condemnation from press freedom advocates.
Salonga argues that decriminalization is crucial, emphasizing that the public — especially journalists — should be able to work and express opinions without fear of imprisonment.
Disinformation, however, is a different issue. While it involves deliberately spreading false information to manipulate public perception and cause harm, it is not always defamatory, as it may not directly target a specific person or group.
This, Salonga said, is the “technical” problem with addressing “fake news.”
“The problem is not imagined. It’s very obvious. We know it, we feel it and we see it everyday,” she added.
Even with Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes “unlawful utterances” such as “false news” that endanger public order, harm state interests or incite disobedience, disinformation remains undefined.
RELATED: How is 'fake news' punishable by law? Anti-cybercrime officers explain
But Salonga also argues that while “false news” lacks a precise definition in the law, the concept is straightforward: a statement is false if it is untrue, and something cannot be considered news if it is not true.
Oftentimes, posts labeled as “fake news” or flagged for fact-checking are often defended as mere opinions. However, veteran journalist Ellen Tordesillas of VERA Files draws a clear distinction between opinions and statements of fact.
In a DZRH News interview on March 23, she stressed that “one is not entitled to their own facts,” only to their opinion. She also explained during a House hearing on March 21 that even opinions can be fact-checked if they are based on statements of fact.
Many vloggers, commentators, and political influencers claim they are merely sharing opinions and should not be held accountable for spreading harmful content.
However, even lawmakers pointed out that these opinions can be built on misleading or false information, making them harmful and more than just their personal views.
RELATED: 'I just write': Blogger Krizette Chu doesn't 'feel responsible' for posts
Media literacy, not a top-down approach
Given the widespread confusion over truth and the challenge of identifying disinformation, Salonga said a law is needed to define false information — one that leaves no room for opinion.
“So as a lawyer wearing my lawyer's hat, I know the difficulty if there's no clear law that we can use to protect our clients that are victimized by fake news peddlers,” she said.
“For me it's important that we have specific laws contextualizing the problematic acts, ‘yung problematic scenarios and addressing them squarely,” she added.
Salonga also said regulation provides clarity as to what actions should be punished and creates the “necessary deterrence for bad actors” to avoid such acts.
This is why she believes measures defining and prohibiting troll farms — organizations that create fake profiles to impersonate real people, manipulate public opinion and incite conflict — should be passed.
Holding social media platforms accountable is also necessary, Salonga said, noting that the Cybercrime Prevention Act already classifies them as service providers, making them subject to certain liabilities.
However, she pointed out that the law lacks direct accountability for these platforms. She suggested a large fine as a penalty, instead of imprisonment, for such violations.
“Meaning to say, if there's fake news, when we have a definition for it, and you allow it to remain on your platform for a certain number of days, and after being given notice, then you should be liable,” Salonga said in a mix of English and Filipino.
At the same time, cultivating media literacy through education is key in the fight against disinformation. Salonga said educational content should be “tailor-fit” to different types of audiences to effectively help them distinguish truth from falsehood.
What should lawmakers do? She said, “Get the concerns of all stakeholders and then try to find the sweet spot... There needs to be that honest-to-goodness [dialogue] because a top-down approach is not effective.”
- Latest
- Trending
