Fake news controls

Cabinet this week gave approval for the legal draftsman to begin drawing up new laws to regulate social media with the aim of controlling fake news and misinformation. The decisions has sparked concern among rights watchdogs who are concerned that the legislation could be used to stifle dissent and increase Government control of online spaces. 

As policymakers react to the controversy surrounding the social media industry, multiple agendas are colliding. In many cases, new Government rules are being advanced without an assessment of their possible long-term effects.

Responding to a digital ecosystem that is increasingly plagued by fake news, hate speech, false advertising, and other problems, officials in various countries have updated their own “intermediary liability” arrangements.

Media Minister and Cabinet Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella, giving details at the weekly Cabinet briefing, insisted that the legislation would only target fake news and misinformation. He argued that media companies and journalists should be on board with the Government effort as it would improve the environment for dissemination of what he termed as correct information. 

Unfortunately, the issue is not quite so clear cut. Freedom of expression is integral to a free society grounded in democracy and governments run the risk of hollowing out these spaces by over-regulating and controlling them. Moreover, just days ahead of the Cabinet decision, Justice Minister Ali Sabry called for stringent laws on the grounds that they affected the reputation of Sri Lanka and showed the country in a bad light. He also supported Singapore-style laws that have been heavily critiqued by rights defenders.         

Singapore has gone so far as to criminalise fake news, which the Government has broad discretion to define. Technology companies that don’t comply with Government content-removal requests risk incurring significant fines. This approach offers little in the way of judicial oversight and has been criticised as overreach and a threat to freedom of expression. 

Germany’s new content law, known as ‘NetzDG’, requires social media providers to follow detailed Government guidelines in blocking access to hate speech, defamation and other illegal content within the country. It too has been condemned for encouraging censorship while imposing standards that are not necessarily recognised in other societies.

As social media gains in influence and opinions shared on platforms have real world consequences, Governments will be more and more inclined to use their powers for their own survival. Typically, when a new government is elected into power, especially with a vast majority, it enjoys a honeymoon period where the public gives it leeway to enact promised policies. However, with the advancement of technology, these periods have become shorter and shorter, leaving governments struggling to keep public sentiment on their side. 

Yet, the answer cannot be draconian legislation. As stated in a UN special rapporteur’s 2018 report on regulating user-generated content, “the authoritative global standard for ensuring freedom of expression on [social media] platforms is human rights law, not the varying laws of States or [the platforms’] own private interests.” 

The Sri Lankan Government has to understand that it has to genuinely work to address public concerns to keep public support. Greater transparency and engagement is far more beneficial for governance, especially rule of law, and tempting as it may be to resort to harsh and excessive laws, the damage they will do to the democratic fabric of a country will be far worse.