Fine line between regulation, censorship

Fine line between regulation, censorship | Daily Tribune

In an ambush interview, newly appointed Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Secretary Jay Ruiz revealed plans to regulate social media and police “fake news.” He lamented that the unregulated social media has allowed misinformation to flourish, posing risks to the public welfare and national security. He went on to suggest that since traditional media outlets like radio, television, and film are subject to oversight, so should social media to ensure accountability for their content shared online.

Movies are reviewed for obscenity and rated accordingly for approved audiences. Television and radio broadcasts are regulated through the stringent process of requiring a legislative franchise for the use of state-owned bandwidth, frequency or channel. Also, there is a mechanism and legal framework in place for accountability for false and damaging speech. As to what extent the government intends to further regulate social media, that remains unclear.

I remember how “blogging” started out as sort of an online journal where one’s thoughts and feelings were posted and shared online. There were some who were so good at it that blogging became an effective tool for “influencing” audiences.

YouTube, once largely a popular avenue for artists and wannabe artists to be discovered, has become a lucrative space for monetization with the battle for eyeballs among videos of just about anything to be shared — upping the ante from written blogs to the more engaging video blogging or “vlogging.” Meanwhile, Facebook’s massive network amplified reach and engagement. Whether it was to think, feel, buy or even vote a certain way — online content shaped a new generation of internet users.

Consider this — maybe the problem with “fake news” lies not in the evolution of social media to what it is today. Words and actions are given the power we allow them to have over us. Maybe the terminology “fake news” itself is the problem for giving credence to false or untrue statements and calling it “news.” Maybe we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing untrue statements to be referred to as news. False, misleading and made-up statements should not qualify as “news.” To some extent, the public should own up to their end by being more discerning and vigilant.

To my mind, there can be no stronger regulation on free speech than those already in place — liability for slander, defamation, libel and any of its cyber iterations, inciting to sedition, rebellion or lawless violence, damages under tort law, even administrative penalties in some cases. But always only as a subsequent punishment or consequence of.

Whether it’s sharing or posting articles, podcasting or vlogging via any of the social media platforms, such content will likely fall within the realm of “free and protected speech” which cannot be restrained. Which brings me to the crux of the issue: by how much more can government intrude and “regulate” social media use?

Attempts by the government to further restrict the exercise of free speech on social media will not go unchallenged, whether as intolerable censorship or prior restraint under the Constitution.

Unless, of course, a strong case for a clear and present danger can be made. But even then, it will only be applied to a specific, limited, and extraordinary exception. I do, however, make room for the possibility that the realm of what is acceptable government intrusion will necessarily evolve alongside technological advances — but not yet. At least not today.