Fake news: Whose version of ‘truth’ will we get, asks rights lawyer

(FMT) – There is a distinction to be made between information that is blatantly fabricated, and information that has been spun to lean a certain way, a la political propaganda, and legitimate news reporting but containing errors.

Rights group Lawyers for Liberty today warned that attempts to curb the spread of fake news should not come at the expense of freedom of speech and expression.

It was responding to the recent announcement by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said that Putrajaya had set up a special committee to formulate laws on tackling fake news.

Although acknowledging that fabricated news content was a concern, its executive director Eric Paulsen questioned the manner in which the committee would define “fake news”.

“For example, there is a distinction to be made between information that is blatantly fabricated, and information that has been spun to lean a certain way, a la political propaganda, and legitimate news reporting but containing errors.

“Can we seriously expect the authorities to be the impartial arbiter, or will they arbitrarily interpret unfavourable news as ‘fake news’?

“Will we have an Orwellian version of ‘the truth’, ie. it is only ‘true’ if the information has been verified by the government?” he said in a statement.

Paulsen said “fake news” was merely the reality of the internet and social media, not the “exaggerated threat to public order or national security that the government has made it out to be”.

He said the authorities should come to terms with this, as any individual with access to information and communications technology and who had sinister intentions could readily create and disseminate “fake news”.

“Currently, there already exist a plethora of laws used to tackle ‘offensive’ speeches or communications, such as the Penal Code, Communications and Multimedia Act, Sedition Act and Printing Presses and Publications Act.

“With such a wide web of legislation, is there a need for more laws that can potentially be misused? After all, we see these laws being unfairly and selectively used against those who are perceived as anti-government while those who are pro-government are usually let off.”

Paulsen also warned that attempting to regulate what was “true” or “false” in cyberspace would be futile as no one had a monopoly over the “truth”.

He said instead of coming up with new laws, the government should focus on educating the public to be vigilant and aware of information sources. This would enable them to become more discerning in consuming and sharing news content with others, he added.

In a statement on Jan 30, Azalina said Putrajaya had formed a special committee to propose laws to curb fake news, which she claimed threatened political stability and public order.

She said the government hoped to table a new law on fake news at the upcoming Parliament session.