Ireland proposes laws to ban online “fake news”

Free speech protections don’t only shield against ideological censors and thin-skinned bullies. They also prevent the government from criminalizing other kinds of speech that have no business being illegal, such as dumb, mean or dishonest things said on social media. And whilst we can agree some things should be illegal, where to draw the line and how to enforce it is a thorny issue – as it should be (limiting people’s rights should never be easy). Anyone who pays attention to how governments operate should be extremely wary of allowing legislators to distinguish between right and wrong speech.

Case in point: This bad proposal out of Ireland.

ACTIVELY promoting 'fake news' using social media sites will be made an offence under proposals to be brought before the Dáil.

New laws tabled by Fianna Fáil would also see the use of internet 'bots' to influence political debate punished with five years in jail or fines of up to €10,000.

[…]

Fianna Fáil TD James Lawless, wrote the legislation, said people should not be naive in thinking "Ireland will not be affected by the new form of hybrid information warfare which is underway on social media".

[…]

Mr Lawless told the Irish Independent that there needed to be a clampdown on numerous fake accounts being used "to disseminate a political message".

It may be a well-intentioned idea, but it should still give anyone who cares about civil liberties the shivers. First of all, there are very few things I can imagine people doing on social media that would reasonably merit years in jail, and lying about politics isn’t one of them. Throwing people behind bars for bullshitting online, even in an organized fashion, is a ghastly precedent to set; it’s textbook overcriminalization. The only people who should police social media are social media companies themselves, not external political operatives whose determination of right and wrong fluctuates with every new law.

Secondly, how are politicians (who, as we all know, are famously in touch with the Internet) going to define what constitutes “fake news”? Does that include fabricated details about real events? What about if a report gets flagged a bunch by a load of people who just don’t like it? Who will step in as an impartial arbiter to determine what news is “fake”? Given governments’ track records, the chances of people being punished for innocent or otherwise allowable speech are catastrophically high.

“Fake news” is no longer just the rallying cry of reality-denying Trumpkins. It’s turning into an excuse for governments to curb online speech they don’t like under the guise of protecting people from lies they’re apparently helpless to recognize.

(via @fark)