Combating falsehood | Political Economy

#Combating #falsehood #Political #Economy

They have quickly amended the prevention of the Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 through Parliament. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent online damage caused by the spread of false information. Although there is a serious threat to misinformation, the use of an ambiguous and widespread legislation to achieve this goal is highly questionable.

There is a long history of the use of propaganda and false information. During the success of succession after the assassination of Julius Caesar, his adoption heir, Oktwin, exploited Mark Antony’s romance with Egyptian Queen Cleopatra to claim that her loyalty to Antony Egypt was Rome. I was ineligible to lead.

With the development of information technology, the problem has become more difficult. A piece of false information can now reach a wider audience and spread at a much faster rate than ever.

The spread of false information can thus endanger the health and safety of an important part of the population. During the Kovid 19 pandemic diseases, misinformation about the beginning of the virus resulted in ethnic attacks against Chinese people in the United States. Vaccine conspiracy theories have caused many people to vaccinate. Similarly, in politics, the spread of false claims of electoral fraud played a vital role in the attack on Capital Hill, which threatens the smooth transfer of power after the 2020 US presidential election.

These risks faced, governments all over the world suffer from a dilemma on ways to deal with misconduct. On the one hand, unprecedented false information jeopardizes public safety, while on the other hand, efforts to promote its risk, possibly legitimate disagreements and silences of minority voices.

The risk of misuse of false information is very real and causes censorship concerns. Various governments have made an excuse to organize false speeches to suppress disagreement and suppress campaigns challenging their political authority.

Bangladesh approved a digital security act in 2018, providing up to 10 years imprisonment to spread “propaganda” against “freedom war and the father of the nation”. In three years after the approval of the law, about 1,000 1,000 people, including 100 journalists, faced legal action under its provisions.

In our country, in 2024, the Punjab government enforced the defamation law that tried to manage fake news. Digital rights activists and journalists have expressed their concerns about the widespread scope of the law and the threats of fundamental rights.

The effects of derogatory laws in reducing false information are uncertain. Damaged online speech cannot target a particular person’s reputation, thus eliminating the possibility of defamation trial. Even when speech is prone to dishonesty, trials can clearly increase the misunderstanding that they try to identify by increasing wider coverage and exposure.

Due to the challenge of enforcement, punctuation rules can be less useful. It is notorious to identify the original source of false information. In the digital period, the identified source can be out of the government’s regional jurisdiction, making it almost impossible for authorities to take direct action against the launch of harmful material.

Past experience shows that rules like PECA 2016 and Punjab Defense Act, 2024 are unlikely to be used to stop fake news and instead, a means of silences voices against the current governments Will become The passage of these laws is dismissed for freedom of expression, which is essential for democracy to take root. Ironically, the PML -N, who is offering strict legislation, condemned the censorship during the PTI government.

Past experience suggests that rules like PECA 2016 and Punjab Dessation Act 2024 are unlikely to use to stop fake news and instead, will become a means of silences voices against existing governments –

It seems that the PML -N’s position makes Milton’s curse. –

Given the dislike and volatility of combating incorrect information through a broad regulatory authority, how should the problem of false information be handled? One possible solution is to encourage the use of anti -speech to deny false information.

Particularly the platform for public personalities and it means to present their view to correct the record. In order to promote the ability to respond with anti -speech, the platform is really needed for the content posted by the third party.

However, the point of view of anti -speech is that not all individuals may have the same ability to engage in anti -speech. Further, the denial or correction cannot eliminate the damage caused by the actual misinformation. However, the use of the rules is unwanted because of its possibility of abusing freedom of expression, while anti -speech promotes individual sovereignty without creating a cool effect.

Therefore, the counter -speech – though less efficient – should be given more priority over regulation. James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States, warned against the dangers of laws that organize press and freedom of speech: “To some extent, excess is not separate from the proper use of everything. And in any case this press Not much is true than […] It is better to leave some of its ridiculous branches, on their luxurious development, instead of harvesting them, injuring the power of the proper fruit producers.

Another solution is to educate the public to protect themselves from wrong information. Cambridge Social Psychologist, Sander Van Der London, has argued to create a public immunity against the virus of misinformation, why we fall due to misinformation and ways to create immunity. Such immunity has been made for people predicting the potential for manipulation of a problem. This helps reduce the sensitivity of those suffering from misinformation of individuals. However, since it is impossible to estimate all kinds of false information, Van Der London advocates for a strategy that enables people to identify the structure of prominent content through misinformation.

Common elements of false information propaganda include discrediting the facts through irrelevant evidence. To doubt a default issue to keep the dispute alive; And to prepare the matter in polar form to tap existing prejudices and divisions. School media can launch literacy programs that make students aware of the elements of false information. Some countries.

To summarize, governments should refrain from confronting falsehoods through overbirds and widespread rules. Instead, more opportunities and paths should be provided for the correct information offer, and the public should be taught to protect themselves from information. Freedom of speech should be protected to provide a competitive market for ideas and individuals should be trusted with the ability to understand the truth by falsehood.

Author, a Rhodes Scholar, is currently based in the UK. It can be arrived at naumanlawyer@gmail.com