Ever since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump has fueled a global circulation of the buzzword ‘fake news’. While his understanding of the term connotes media platforms and opinions that he does not favor or agree with, the creation of a loose concept such as fake news entails serious consequences for the freedom of speech far beyond U.S. borders. Malaysia, Russia, France, South Korea, India, the Philippines, and most recently Singapore have voiced the idea to adopt legal measures in order to minimize the spread of false, harmful information.
This begs the question of who should be responsible for regulating information posted online. Facebook-CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued in favor of a government discourse on regulating internet content and protecting free speech in an op-ed article in March 2019. Mr. Zuckerberg diffuses criticism against Facebook and diverts responsibility with this tactic. Relinquishing responsibility to governments, the CEO maintains that legislation on harmful online content, data privacy, and election interference should be decided on by governments instead of companies alone. This creates a wider net of online user protection. However, it also transfers more power to governments and lawmakers to rule over online content management.
Drafting national legislations on fake news in order to protect democratic processes and state institutions seems to be a logical step. The UK’s ‘Brexit’ referendum on leaving the European Union in June 2016 and the U.S. presidential election during the same year demonstrate that a lack of rules on false information on social media platforms can lead to rigged shifts in the political landscape. Legal measures are meant to disarm individuals, groups or companies from spreading fake news. They could have halted businesses such as Cambridge Analytica or AggregateIQ that are responsible for disseminating tailored misinformation among online users and ultimately manipulating public opinion on elections. Likewise, news outlets would also be subject to legal scrutiny.
While safeguarding the public and the government from false information is a positive development, national laws on fake news may grant governments too much power. Safeguarding can then turn into censorship. Singapore’s plan to implement an anti-fake news law in 2019 should therefore be viewed with caution. Distributors of online content that the government regards as a threat to public interest, public perception of the government, foreign affairs, national security, or electoral integrity may be prosecuted. Government officials will be given the authority to administer corrections, removals, or the blocking of information. Individuals may be punished with a maximum fine of 100,000 SGD (74,000 USD), imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both, and other entities must reckon with a fine of up to 1 million SGD (740,000 USD). Not only social media platforms with regional offices such as Twitter, Facebook, or Google but also news agencies with regional branches such as Reuters or the BBC will have to submit to these regulations.
Since Singapore performs comparatively poorly on the 2019 World Press Freedom Index with a ranking of 151 out of 180 countries, worries that the Singaporean government will further its own interests through censorship are justified. Applying censorship laws under the pretense of protecting the public seems especially hazardous when legal definitions of truth and opinion are elusive. Critics argue that Singapore’s current definition of fake information grants authorities too much room to decide what the truth is.
Trying to implement anti-fake news laws for fear of defamation is not a new idea, however. French President Emmanuel Macron demanded the ban of fake news in 2018 after unsubstantiated rumors about him surfaced during the 2017 French presidential election. One of these reports stated that Macron owns a secret bank account in the Bahamas’ tax haven. Furthermore, Najib Razak, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, also attempted to secure his position with a bill on fake news in the run-up to the general election in 2018. His intent was to cover up corruption accusations that would diminish his chances of winning. Russia also employs a strategy in order to control the media. Fake news laws allow the Russian government to block information that it deems detrimental to state symbols or institutions.
A lack of regulations on the systematic spread of false information can be damaging to democracy and state institutions, but at the same time, fake news laws can endanger free speech, free press, and eventually democracy. Political decision-makers can turn ill-defined terminology on what is fake news and what is opinion into a tool to silence dissidents. Countries with a weak World Press Freedom Index such as Russia, Malaysia, or Singapore are particularly prone to such misuse of the law. The weaponization of fake news laws is thus an increasingly worrisome possibility in coming years.
