Alarm bells over Information Department’s move to define “fake news”

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is dismayed with a recent infographic shared by the Information Department on Friday, 10 April 2020, that seemed to impose what appears to be the government’s definitions of what “fake news” entails and its negative impacts.

The tweet, posted on the Information Department’s official Twitter account, lists the following as fake news:

Information that:

• brings down the dignity and image of an individual, the reputation of an organisation and the country;
• instills hate towards the ruling government and leaders;
• relates to the infrastructure of critical information about the country;
• involve teachings of extremists beliefs;
• touches on the sensitivity of religion and race, and;
• contains elements of pornography, gambling and lies.
  

The fundamental norms of freedom of expression and speech as enshrined in our Federal Constitution and international standards clearly stipulate that the public has the right to know, seek and receive, as well as to impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, protected under international legal guarantees of the rights to freedom of expression and to hold opinions. As understood within the international human rights framework, the “human right to impart information and ideas is not limited to ‘correct’ statements, that the right also protects information and ideas that may shock, offend and disturb, …”

The dangers of generalising and listing the alleged “types” of “fake news” alludes to tactical attempts by the government at cracking down legitimate speech aimed at crushing dissent or differences of opinion or disproportionately restricting various forms of expression. This adds to the risks that the measures adopted by the government to counter this could now lead to further surveillance, invasion of privacy and censorship and, as is the practice in Malaysia, lead to criminal prosecution.

This attempt at generalising the types of information based on vague and ambiguous interpretation further limits understanding of what is actually at stake here. In the first place, news is usually understood as noteworthy information that is reliable and its source clearly verifiable. As such, the term “fake news” is an oxymoron as news cannot be fake. 

Besides that, the harm test must always be adhered to in determining if the disinformation actually was intended to mislead and did in fact lead to undermining individual reputations and privacy and incited violence, discrimination or hostility against specific groups or community; general dissent or questioning of public institutions leading to distrust of said institution would not necessarily meet the harm test. 

“Fake news” thus, must be looked at within the larger ecosystem of information. The focus should be understanding the distinct differences between “misinformation” and “disinformation” and the actual intentions behind spreading this kind of information. Misinformation is generally understood as mistakenly or inadvertently creating and spreading false or inaccurate information without malicious or manipulative intent to deceive. Disinformation can be understood as deliberate and systemic attempts with clear intent and design to manipulate and sway peoples’ thinking through propagated, false and dishonest information. 

The Malaysian government must ensure that any measures taken to address and mitigate dissemination of disinformation must guarantee the right to information, which includes unencumbered access to a wide source of information and ideas that would facilitate public debates and enable the formation of informed opinions. 

The government must continue to promote democracy and allow dissenting voices to be heard and accessed. As such, the government must undertake a holistic and proportionate response to disinformation or “fake news”, which would include:

• Promoting informed debates as fundamental to informed decision-making, and, as such, critical views must not be censored or criminalised – especially in times like this, and with a new government in power;
• Focusing on education and dissemination of public information countering the alleged “fake news” as is being carried out by the Communication and Multimedia Ministry and not on prosecution;
• Having efficient and broad channels of information from the government and media, accessible and reliable means for the public to verify information and access to reporting facilities within social media applications for misinformation to be removed, and;
• Moving towards enacting a right to information law and repealing or amending repressive laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, amending Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act so that these laws are not utilised arbitrarily to stifle all manner of speech. 

11 March 2020

Wathshlah G. Naidu
CIJ Executive Director

For media inquiries, contact Vinodh Pillai at vndhpll@gmail.com