About a week before the US presidential election in November last year, someone posted on Twitter that then-US presidential candidate and former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton was at the center of a pedophilia ring. The rumor spread through social media, and a right-wing talk show host named Alex Jones repeatedly stated that she was involved in child abuse and that her campaign chairman, John Podesta, took part in satanic rituals.
In a YouTube video (since removed), Jones referred to “all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped.”
The video, posted four days before the election, was watched more than 400,000 times.
E-mails released by WikiLeaks showed that Podesta sometimes dined at a Washington pizza restaurant called Comet Ping Pong. Apparently for that reason, the child-sex-ring accusations focused on the pizza restaurant and used the hashtag #pizzagate.
The allegations were frequently retweeted by bots — programs designed to spread certain types of messages — contributing to the impression that many people were taking “Pizzagate” seriously. The story, amazingly, was also retweeted by General Michael Flynn, who is soon to be US president-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser.
Even after Trump’s election — and despite debunking by the New York Times and the Washington Post — the story continued to spread. Comet Ping Pong was harassed by constant, abusive and often threatening phone calls. When the manager approached the police, he was told the rumors were constitutionally protected speech.
Edgar Welch, a Christian who has Bible verses tattooed on his back, was one of Jones’ listeners. On Dec. 4, he drove 560km from his home in North Carolina to Comet Ping Pong, armed with an assault rifle, a revolver and a knife. He allowed guests and staff to leave while he searched for enslaved children supposedly hidden in tunnels. He fired his rifle at least once, to open a locked door. After finding no children, he surrendered to police.
Fake news — “active misinformation” that is packaged to look as if it comes from a serious news site — is a threat to democratic institutions. There have been less absurd examples, including a fake report of a nuclear threat by Israel’s defense minister that misled his Pakistani counterpart into retweeting the report and warning Israel that Pakistan, too, is a nuclear power.
US President Barack Obama acknowledged the danger to democratic freedoms when speaking to the press in Germany shortly after the US election. Whether or not fake news cost Clinton the presidency, it plainly could cause a candidate to lose an election and upset international relations. It is also contrary to one of the fundamental premises on which democracy rests: that voters can make informed choices between contending candidates.
The First Amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
By 1919, the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of those words had led to the doctrine that Congress could prohibit speech only if it posed “a clear and present danger” of serious harm.
That position was further refined in what is perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech by a US judge: Louis Brandeis’ concurring opinion in the 1927 case of Whitney v California.
Brandeis described freedom of speech and assembly as “functions essential to effective democracy.” He appealed to “courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government.”
On that basis, for speech to pose a clear and present danger that could justify prohibiting it, the harm the speech would cause must be so imminent that it could preclude any opportunity to discuss fully what had been said. If, Brandeis insisted, there is “time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Today, it is difficult to have so much confidence in the power of “free and fearless reasoning,” especially if it is supposed to be “applied through the processes of popular government” — which presumably requires that it influence elections. Similarly, Brandeis’ belief that “more speech, not enforced silence” is the remedy for “falsehood and fallacies” looks naive, especially if applied in an election campaign.
What, though, is the alternative?
What Jones said about Clinton is surely defamation and she could bring a civil suit against him; but that would be costly and time-consuming, most likely taking years. In any case, civil defamation lawsuits are effective only against those who have the assets to pay whatever damages are awarded.
What about criminal libel?
In the UK, “defamatory libel” was for many centuries a criminal offense, but it fell into disuse and was abolished in 2010.
In the US, criminal libel is not a federal offense. It continues to be a crime in some states, but few cases are brought.
A report in 2015 by A. Jay Wagner and Anthony Fargo for the International Press Institute describes many of the recent cases as “petty” and regards the civil libel law as a better recourse for “personal grievances.”
The report concludes that criminal libel has become “redundant and unnecessary.”
Recent examples of fake news suggest that Wagner and Fargo’s conclusion was premature. To accuse, during an election campaign, a US presidential candidate of personally murdering children is not petty and civil libel law provides no adequate remedy. In the Internet age, is it time for the legal pendulum to swing back toward the offense of criminal libel?
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, entered service this week after a commissioning ceremony in China’s Hainan Province on Wednesday last week. Chinese state media reported that the Fujian would be deployed to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the western Pacific. It seemed that the Taiwan Strait being one of its priorities meant greater military pressure on Taiwan, but it would actually put the Fujian at greater risk of being compromised. If the carrier were to leave its home port of Sanya and sail to the East China Sea or the Yellow Sea, it would have to transit the
RSS