IN ITS DECISION in Tolentino vs. Heydarian rendered a month ago, the Supreme Court, writing through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, acknowledged the spread of wrong or harmful information on digital platforms.
We all saw how incendiary speech on Facebook helped shape the 2016 national elections in the Philippines, and all the subsequent elections leading to today.
The Philippine case showcases a growing global onslaught of fake news and disinformation.
***
The Heydarian decision defines certain types of speech, some of which may result in liability.
Misinformation is the “sharing of false information with no intention to cause harm. It is possible that the false information was shared without any awareness of its falsity, and the person making the statement is in fact convinced they are sharing true or correct information.”
Mal-information is the “sharing of that which may be true or correct but it is being done to hurt or harm another person or entity.”
***
Disinformation, according to the Supreme Court, “is wrong information deliberately shared with knowledge of its falsity. It is usually done to further an agenda.”
Due to the speed and scale by which these types of information are shared through cyberspace, “the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information have real and lasting consequences that affect not only the subject of the statements, but also the collective consciousness which results in changes in behavior and beliefs, thus altering reality.”
Social media platforms can indeed influence the beliefs of the majority.
***
As a guide in the resolution of future cases, the Supreme Court declared that misinformation and mal-information may be defensible in some instances.
Disinformation is treated much differently. It should be restricted and penalized once false content, malicious intent, and harmful effect is established.
Disinformation has no “free-speech value.” It is on the same plane as other unprotected speech, such as hate speech or obscene speech.
***
Opinion, as a general rule, falls under the ambit of protected speech. The Constitution protects the freedom to express one’s thoughts and feelings.
However, it does not enjoy such kind of protection if it falls under the category of “hate speech.”
Hate speech requires regulation because of the “harm that it brings to the group that the speech is directed upon.”
***
Social media posts have become a barometer of public sentiment.
Vloggers, bloggers, and thousands of positive comments validating hate speech were utilized to rally public sentiment behind drug war killings and arrests.
Hate speech in social media was also used to foment red-tagging against progressives or those who took even the slightest opposing positions against the administration in power.
***
The Supreme Court is thus steering free-speech discussions toward the internet as the biggest marketplace of ideas.
“Digital infrastructures can manipulate behavior by altering people’s perceived realities. Artificial intelligence, pervasive use of algorithms, bots, and other nonhuman actors are now factors in influencing and shaping people’s beliefs and consumption of information online.”
These modern tools of expression may be used for good or evil./PN
