This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title above was published at https://pen.org/press-clip/pro-free-speech-way-fight-fake-news/ The second was published at https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/
The rise of fraudulent news and the related erosion of public trust in mainstream journalism pose a looming crisis for free expression. The championing of free speech must not privilege any immutable notion of the truth to the exclusion of others. But this doesn't mean that free speech proponents should be indifferent to the quest for truth, or to attempts to deliberately undermine the public's ability to distinguish fact from falsehood. The power of free speech is inextricably tied to the opportunity to be heard and believed. Fake news undermines precisely these. If public discourse becomes so flooded with disinformation that listeners can no longer distinguish signal from noise. They purvey falsehoods to mislead, confuse and to instill a sense of the futility of speech that saps the will to cry foul, protest, or resist. On social media, the problem is not one of control, but of chaos. The ferocious pace with which false information can spread can make defending the truth or correcting seem like mission impossible. The problem of fraudulent news now is compounded by political divisions that undercut the traditional ways in which truth prevails. A significant portion of the population distrust a wide array of sources they perceive as politically hostile. The debate over solutions to fraudulent news has centered on what the government, news outlet, social media platforms, and civil society actors like fact-checking groups can do. Each has an role to play, but they also must respect sharp limits to their interventions. The constitution forbids the government from adjudicating which news is true and which is false. Google and Facebook, as private platforms should monitor their sites to make sure that dangerous conspiracy theories don't go viral, but if they over-police what appears on their pages, they'll create new impairments for edgy speech. Certainly, news outlets should strive to uphold professional and ethical standards, but they alone can't convince cynical readers to trust them. The proliferation of overly partisan media, lower barriers to entry into public discourse, and information flooding across the web and cable news, consumers need new tools to sort through choices and make informed decisions about where to invest their attention. The fight against fake news will hinge not on inculcating trust in specific sources but on instilling skepticism, curiosity and a sense of agency among consumers, who are the best bulwark against the merchants of deceit. A news consumers' movement should include several prongs, it should include an advocacy arm to prod newsrooms, internet platforms, and social media giants into being transparent about their decisions as to what is elevated and how it is marked. It should develop an investigative research arm to expose, name, and shame the purveyors of fraudulent news and their financial backers. And it might provide periodic ranking of, and reporting on, newsrooms and other outlets to hold them accountable to their audiences. Recognizing fake news as a threat to free expression can't be grounds to justify a cure, in the form of new restrictions on free speech, that may end up being worse than the disease. Unscrupulous may never cease in their efforts to infect the information flow to serve their purposes. The best prescription is to inoculate consumers by building up their ability to defend themselves.
Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests. Exercising these rights, without fear or unlawful interference, is central to living in an open and fair society, one in which people can access justice and enjoy their human rights. Yet governments around the world routinely imprison people for speaking out, even though almost every country's constitution refers to the value of free speech. Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech but many abuse their authority to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalising freedom of expression. How governments tolerate unfavourable views or critical voice is often a good indication of how they treat human rights generally. We consider anyone put in prison solely for exercising their right to free speech peacefully to be a prisoner of conscience and call for their immediate and unconditional release. Defending freedom of expression is vital in holding the powerful to account. Freedom of expression also underpins other human rights such as the rifgrfreedom of thought, conscience and religion, and allows them to flourish. It is also closely linked to freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly. However, these very freedoms come under attack by governments that want to stifle criticism. For example, in Egypt it is currently dangerous to criticize the government. Over the course of 2018, the authorities arrested at least 113 individuals citing a host of absurd reasons including satire, tweeting, denouncing sexual harassment, editing movies and giving interviews. Detained without trial for months, those who eventually faced trial were sentenced by military courts. A free press reporting on the issues that interest us and shape our lives is a key building block of any rights-respecting society. Yet in Azerbaijan, Turkey and Venezuela to name just a few countries, journalists face repression and attacks. In July 2019, the libel trial began in the Philippines against Maria Ressa, the executive editor of online news outlet Rappler. Ressa, a prominent critic of President Rodrigo Duterte, was arrested in February 2019 on trumped up libel charges after Rappler published detailed investigations into some of the thousands of extrajudicial executions committed by police and unknown armed persons, with Duterte's explicit encouragement. Her case is widely seen as an attack by the government on press freedom. Freedom of expression, applies to ideas of all kinds, including those that may be offensive. While international law protects free speech, there are instances where speech can be restricted under the same law, such as when it violates the rights of others, or advocates hatred and incites discrimination or violence. The digital world gives many more of us access to the information we need, including to challenge governments and corporations. Information is power and the internet has the potential to significantly empower the people. Increasingly, some states try to build firewalls around digital communications, or in the case of Egypt, Sudan and Zimbabwe among others, respond to mass street protests with an internet shutdown. Iran, China and Vietnam have all tried to develop systems that enable them to control access to digital information. In India's Kashmir region, mobile internet and communications are suspended in response to any unrest. Governments are also using dangerous and sophisticated tech to read activists and journalists' private emails. In Poland, since 2016, tens of thousands of people have protested against repressive legislation aimed at curbing women's rights and undermining the independence of the judiciary. Protesters have routinely been met with a show of force and restrictive measures that infringe their right to be seen and heard. In parallel with tightening the laws affecting the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the government has expanded the surveillance powers with evidence that these powers have been used against people engaged in participating in protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment