French government to crack down on fake news - or freedom of speech?

[InertiaSelling]

If you're French and you've been making fun of the USA for repealing net neutrality, you can stop laughing now. As this article from The Guardian states, Macron intends to provide the CSA (Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel, Higher Audiovisual Council) with unprecedented power over the Internet, amongst other things:

 

Quote

For fake news published during election seasons, an emergency legal action could allow authorities to remove that content or even block the website, Macron said.

 

Unsurprisingly enough, he claims to fight "propaganda articulated by thousands of social media accounts", and pretends this law aims at defending "liberal democracies", a phrase he's been using so much lately that some people are starting to wonder whether he's just learned about it.

 

Quote

"If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules," he added.

 

Meanwhile, the IFOP (Institut Français d'Opinion Publique, French Institute of Public Opinion) published a poll whereby 79% of the French population believes in at least one conspiracy theory. Except its methods are a bit sketchy to say the least, since some questions mixed actual facts with random nonsense, like the fact that AIDS appeared in Africa and the belief that it was created in a lab. Also, some regarded religious beliefs ("God created Man and the Earth less than 10'000 years ago") while others were rather vague statements regarding news items ("It is unsure whether the Paris attacks were planned and perpetrated by islamic terrorists alone"), which makes for a very broad understanding of the term "conspiracy theory".

 

 

There is no denying that false information has spread a lot lately, and the Internet has been a part of that. However, qualifying the theses of one's opponents as "fake news" or "conspiracy theories" amounts to denying either their ability to reason or their good intentions. This is a popular way of legitimising censorship, which the french government seems to be keen on enforcing very soon. As a reminder, article 27 of the 1881 law on freedom of the press already penalises the act of deliberately spreading "fausses nouvelles" (literally, "fake news"). This moralistic and Manichean tendancy is not a new phenomenon, and has been often studied by political scientists. What is really disheartening, aside from the authoritarian drift of the government, is the fact that a polling organisation agrees to deliver polls whose clear goal is to legitimise a government bill. A junior sociologist would tell them that, by mixing truth and lies in the questions, and by choosing a biased line of questioning in the first place, it is easy to get results that are devoid of scientific value, but that convey a clear political message. This new law looks like another serious attack on Internet freedom and, given the institutional structure of the French fifth Republic, there is very little that can be done to oppose it.

[Sauron]

It's one of those things that in theory shouldn't cause any problems (factually disprovable "news" on candidates don't count as personal opinions being censored) but in practice is vulnerable to corruption and partial judgement. Personally I don't think obscuring websites is the right way to fight misinformation as slander charges should be enough to dissuade anyone from doing it in the first place. This just removes the trial and the ability of the author do defend their claim, which is not the best way to go about things in a democracy.

 

At least it's not quite as bad as losing net neutrality, which leaves the internet at the complete mercy of unscrupulous corporations.

[Ansger]

I didn't read Macron's proposal but i think you are mistaken in some aspects. 

The proposal is, I think, not aimed at censorship but rather at organized spreading of harmful fake information that is aimed specifically at undermining the core principles upon which the country is built. (democracy, tolerance, solidarity,...). I don't think the proposal's goal is to censor information that is not spread by a malicious organization. It is rather a response to Russian meddling in some elections and stuff like that. 

 

Also, I didn't study French law, but I know the basics of it, and I studied different areas in European law. I can tell you that the proposal, if it wants to adhere to European law, is not aimed at censorship. It won't want to control what is said on the internet or anything else. 

 

You might be worried about the government to implement regulation that can be missused later down the line (which is the main risk with information controlling regulation) but French's division of power and the European supervision are all very capable of keeping the French government in check when it comes to limiting personal freedoms. Heck even the ECHR has a say in the matter when personal freedoms are being limited.

 

The much bigger threat is not France manipulating its people with the use of censorship. The bigger threat is other organizations manipulating te French people with the use of fake information. Don't be naive and think that every check on free speech is bad. There is also no free speech when everything else is drowned out by organised spreading of propaganda and "fake news". 

 

I think the proposal is aimed more at dealing with this than with censuring internet content. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Monkey Dust]

It's a tricky one. Debate, and election results, are being skewed by utter nonsense on the internet, be it caused by confirmation bias (of which we are all guilty) or large numbers of idiots who will believe anything. So an independent body fact checking news items seems like a good idea... But not everything is black and white, how would they handle claims that can currently be neither proved nor disproved or the misrepresentation of statistics for example. And how would they guard against confirmation bias within that organisation? 

 

The root of the problem is people are too trusting of what they see on their social media feeds, it should be trusted with the same level of suspicion you treat the 'one weird trick' links.  

[Misanthrope]

This has about 10 more seconds before it's closed or moved since it will devolve into an inevitably politically charged thread.

 

So bear this in mind: I wouldn't expect replies or debates here I am certainly not going to spend too much time because I know it's far beyond the scope of the forums and very tangentially related to tech.

 

That being said is that while in principle I dislike regulation that can easily turn into censorship, In practice most of the people crying "Fake News!" today up to and including the POTUS actually have their ears on the truly fake news like Infowars. So I really don't care anymore for their arguments against CNN when their serious alternative is a guy talking about literal vampire pot bellied goblins.

[InertiaSelling]

10 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

This has about 10 more seconds before it's closed or moved since it will devolve into an inevitably politically charged thread.

I didn't think it was any more or less political than net neutrality when I decided to submit this topic but, as I'm proofreading my own answer, I'm starting to agree with you.

 

@Ansger I'm not a fanatical advocate of freedom of speech, we have a number of laws that are supposed to prevent people from spreading hate or denying historical facts, and I do not oppose them all. There are several issues with the government's intents though, the first and most obvious one being that this bill would provide the CSA with emergency powers over information feeds during election periods. If a questionable decision is made, be it due to human error or actual political interference, it is almost impossible to contest it before it has influenced voting intentions. Another issue lies within what you call "the core principles upon which the country is built". Despite decades of jurisprudence and debate, there is still no consensus about what exactly they are. Some rules that date back to the earliest days of the Republic, such as the nullity of any imperative mandate, are still being contested, despite arguably being part of our "core principles". Also, as @Monkey Dust stated, when discussing "claims that can currently be neither proved nor disproved", the potential for censorship is immense. I think you underestimate the amount of resistance a hegemonic system of opinions is able to put up when it is challenged.

[Spenser1337]

5 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

I didn't think it was any more or less political than net neutrality when I decided to submit this topic but, as I'm proofreading my own answer, I'm starting to agree with you.

 

@Ansger I'm not a fanatical advocate of freedom of speech, we have a number of laws that are supposed to prevent people from spreading hate or denying historical facts, and I do not oppose them all. There are several issues with the government's intents though, the first and most obvious one being that this bill would provide the CSA with emergency powers over information feeds during election periods. If a questionable decision is made, be it due to human error or actual political interference, it is almost impossible to contest it before it has influenced voting intentions. Another issue lies within what you call "the core principles upon which the country is built". Despite decades of jurisprudence and debate, there is still no consensus about what exactly they are. Some rules that date back to the earliest days of the Republic, such as the nullity of any imperative mandate, are still being contested, despite arguably being part of our "core principles". Also, as @Monkey Dust stated, when discussing "claims that can currently be neither proved nor disproved", the potential for censorship is immense. I think you underestimate the amount of resistance a hegemonic system of opinions is able to put up when it is challenged.

Lol.

[Master Disaster]

One good thing Brexit has done is weakened Theresa Mays political position so much that all that nonsense Cameron tried to force through (much of it went further than these french proposals) is now dead in the water, she has neither the political position nor the trust and backing of any one.

 

Reading through the basics of this it seems quite similar to what Cameron wanted for England (except he also wanted to outright ban porn), basically the ability for the government to silence anything they don't approve of on the internet under the guise of silencing hate speech and protection from fake news stories.

 

48 minutes ago, Ansger said:

I didn't read Macron's proposal but i think you are mistaken in some aspects. 

The proposal is, I think, not aimed at censorship but rather at organized spreading of harmful fake information that is aimed specifically at undermining the core principles upon which the country is built. (democracy, tolerance, solidarity,...). I don't think the proposal's goal is to censor information that is not spread by a malicious organization. It is rather a response to Russian meddling in some elections and stuff like that. 

 

Also, I didn't study French law, but I know the basics of it, and I studied different areas in European law. I can tell you that the proposal, if it wants to adhere to European law, is not aimed at censorship. It won't want to control what is said on the internet or anything else. 

 

You might be worried about the government to implement regulation that can be missused later down the line (which is the main risk with information controlling regulation) but French's division of power and the European supervision are all very capable of keeping the French government in check when it comes to limiting personal freedoms. Heck even the ECHR has a say in the matter when personal freedoms are being limited.

 

The much bigger threat is not France manipulating its people with the use of censorship. The bigger threat is other organizations manipulating te French people with the use of fake information. Don't be naive and think that every check on free speech is bad. There is also no free speech when everything else is drowned out by organised spreading of propaganda and "fake news". 

 

I think the proposal is aimed more at dealing with this than with censuring internet content. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

The issue with this is how governments have passed laws to do one thing but then totally abused the powers to force an agenda onto the population. Take Anti Terrorism laws for example, there was a recent case in the UK where a guy was filming in the street, something he is allowed to do, then the police show up, tell him there's an airport 3 miles away from him and that if he doesn't stop filming he will be arrested of suspected terrorism, have all his equipment confiscated and probably end up in prison. He was doing nothing wrong, had broken no laws yet the police used the magic word and suddenly he's liable for arrest unless he gives up his rights and complies.

 

Governments like to make laws look public friendly but in reality they're carefully worded to serve the enforcers more than the general population.

[Ansger]

2 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

I didn't think it was any more or less political than net neutrality when I decided to submit this topic but, as I'm proofreading my own answer, I'm starting to agree with you.

 

@Ansger I'm not a fanatical advocate of freedom of speech, we have a number of laws that are supposed to prevent people from spreading hate or denying historical facts, and I do not oppose them all. There are several issues with the government's intents, the first and most obvious one being that this bill would provide the CSA with emergency powers over information feeds during election periods. If a questionable decision is made, be it due to human error or actual political interference, it is almost impossible to contest it before it has influenced voting intentions. Another issue lies within what you call "the core principles upon which the country is built". Despite decades of jurisprudence and debate, there is still no consensus about what exactly they are. Some rules that date back to the earliest days of the Republic, such as the nullity of any imperative mandate, are still being contested, despite arguably being part of our "core principles". Also, as @Monkey Dust stated, when discussing "claims that can currently be neither proved nor disproved", the potential for censorship is immense. I think you underestimate the amount of resistance a hegemonic system of opinions is able to put up when it is challenged.

There are considerable risks involved ant indeed, the granting of "emergency powers" sure ass hell seem like a recipe for disaster. My opinion, and yes it is very much an opinion, is that there should be a system in place to deal with the threat of organized spreading of malicious content. I agree however that it should not take the form of an institution being granted emergency powers, if those powers can be used ad hoc during a crisis. It should take the form of a well structured system in which it is clear what will and will not be filtered out. Only then can judicial overview be effective enough to safeguard freedom of speech (again, in my opinion). 

I also am aware of the fact that there is no consensus about what the "the core principles upon which the country is built" specifically are. It is an intentionally vague concept created to embody the general ideas that give the  current institutions their legitimacy. I know this is subject to change, but they are principles worth to protect, even if they would seem weird, contraproductive, or backwards in hindsight. 

 

To sum up: I agree that the proposal as you described it would be too unsafe, but i want to stress that  measures to combat organized information manipulation should be taken. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that freedom of speech is not absolute. I just wanted to argue that one should also look at the other side of the medal here and see that there are legitimate reasons and concerns behind the proposal. The execution, if it will take the form that you describe, won't be the solution however. 

[Nicnac]

There was a case in Germany recently where a satire magazine's twitter was suspended because of the new NetzDG. Because operators can pay up to 500k for not deleting hate speech etc they are being extra careful resulting in problems like this.

 

edit: it's actually 50 Mil ....wow

[Ansger]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The issue with this is how governments have passed laws to do one thing but then totally abused the powers to force an agenda onto the population. Take Anti Terrorism laws for example, there was a recent case in the UK where a guy was filming in the street, something he is allowed to do, then the police show up, tell him there's an airport 3 miles away from him and that if he doesn't stop filming he will be arrested of suspected terrorism, have all his equipment confiscated and probably end up in prison. He was doing nothing wrong, had broken no laws yet the police used the magic word and suddenly he's liable for arrest unless he gives up his rights and complies.

 

Governments like to make laws look public friendly but in reality they're carefully worded to serve the enforcers more than the general population.

I don't really agree with that. Laws are rarely made specifically to be abused. A lot of the time a law is made and the transition of power to another party or person or institution often results in the new "power" to abuse the law. I don't think France is especially susceptible to this as there are a lot of checks on governmental use of powers. I agree that any restrictions on the freedom of speech must be held to a much higher standard than other laws however. It's always a good reflex to question any restriction sharing of information. I do however also think that sometimes there is a legitimate reason behind it. 

(note: I am not talking about the execution, but rather about the concept op restricting freedom of speech as a whole)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

39 minutes ago, Ansger said:

I didn't read Macron's proposal but i think you are mistaken in some aspects. 

The proposal is, I think, not aimed at censorship but rather at organized spreading of harmful fake information that is aimed specifically at undermining the core principles upon which the country is built. (democracy, tolerance, solidarity,...). I don't think the proposal's goal is to censor information that is not spread by a malicious organization.

 

The problem with laws is not what they aim for, but what they actually say and what can be done with them. You don't want to give a government (or any other person/organizarion for that matter) any power on the basis of "their good will". If we were going to trust intentions, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. You can propose the "make everyone better off" law with the explicitly stated purpose of "making everyone's life better and getting rid of evil things", but if the actual content of the law enables the police to arrest people for no reason, then it's just as bad as if it was the "arrest people arbitrarily law".

 

39 minutes ago, Ansger said:

It is rather a response to Russian meddling in some elections and stuff like that. 

* alleged meddling

(I could even say "conveniently alleged"),

 

39 minutes ago, Ansger said:

 

Also, I didn't study French law, but I know the basics of it, and I studied different areas in European law. I can tell you that the proposal, if it wants to adhere to European law, is not aimed at censorship. It won't want to control what is said on the internet or anything else. 

 

You might be worried about the government to implement regulation that can be missused later down the line (which is the main risk with information controlling regulation) but French's division of power and the European supervision are all very capable of keeping the French government in check when it comes to limiting personal freedoms. Heck even the ECHR has a say in the matter when personal freedoms are being limited.

I very much doubt it. Spain passed some very troublesome law a few years ago and Europe didn't move a finger. (As an example, a woman was ID'd and fined by police officers for carrying a bag with the inscription "ACAB All Cats Are Beatiful" and the silhouette under that law -yes, in English and without the original readout of the acronym-).

 

The current push in Europe and elsewhere is "Russian hackers yadda yadda yadda, so we need to control everything", much like it was "because terrorism" before. 

 

39 minutes ago, Ansger said:

The much bigger threat is not France manipulating its people with the use of censorship. The bigger threat is other organizations manipulating te French people with the use of fake information. Don't be naive and think that every check on free speech is bad. There is also no free speech when everything else is drowned out by organised spreading of propaganda and "fake news". 

It is actually naïve, borderline manichean I would say, to believe there are organizations and governments willing to manipulate the public opinion through fake news, except for a handful of freedom paladins who happen to be our own governments and the ones with the biggest interest in what is supposedly being manipulated. Do the Russian, Chinese, American, German governments care about the results of French elections? Maybe. More than the French government? I doubt so.

 

Having said that, and precisely because it's the actual letter of the law what matters (especially in non-common law countries), I think we need more information on the details before reaching a conclusion, and I would accept that OP talked more about his point of view than about how he formed it.

[Eaglerino]

44 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

This has about 10 more seconds before it's closed or moved since it will devolve into an inevitably politically charged thread.

 

So bear this in mind: I wouldn't expect replies or debates here I am certainly not going to spend too much time because I know it's far beyond the scope of the forums and very tangentially related to tech.

 

That being said is that while in principle I dislike regulation that can easily turn into censorship, In practice most of the people crying "Fake News!" today up to and including the POTUS actually have their ears on the truly fake news like Infowars. So I really don't care anymore for their arguments against CNN when their serious alternative is a guy talking about literal vampire pot bellied goblins.

When has Trump ever mentioned infowars as an alternative? He usually goes to Fox News. I only see Infowars from memeing Trump supporters

[Ansger]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The problem with laws is not what they aim for, but what they actually say and what can be done with them. You don't want to give a government (or any other person/organizarion for that matter) any power on the basis of "their good will". If we were going to trust intentions, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. You can propose the "make everyone better off" law with the explicitly stated purpose of "making everyone's life better and getting rid of evil things", but if the actual content of the law enables the police to arrest people for no reason, then it's just as bad as if it was the "arrest people arbitrarily law".

 

I know, i specifically said this. Right before I said why I think France is not really susceptible to it. (not more than a non freedom of speech restricting country is susceptible to becoming a more or less fascist state). 

 

6 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I very much doubt it. Spain passed some very troublesome law a few years ago and Europe didn't move a finger. (As an example, a woman was ID'd and fined by police officers for carrying a bag with the inscription "ACAB All Cats Are Beatiful" and the silhouette under that law -yes, in English and without the original readout of the acronym-).

 

Anecdotes don't cover the impact of something. In the US people where ran over by white supremacists disguising their acts under "freedom of speech". See how easy it is to find anecdotes of stuff to force a debate in a certain direction?  

The fact that this one woman was victim to a questionable law does not mean the law should not exist. 

I don't know why the checks on the misuse of government power didn't kick in but i suspect that the woman in question did not really seek out rprotection from the ECJ, ECHR or the Spanish courts. I could be wrong however and would definitely be interested if I am wrong.

13 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

t is actually naïve, borderline manichean I would say, to believe there are organizations and governments willing to manipulate the public opinion through fake news, except for a handful of freedom paladins who happen to be our own governments and the ones with the biggest interest in what is supposedly being manipulated. Do the Russian, Chinese, American, German governments care about the results of French elections? Maybe. More than the French government? I doubt so.

I think here we have different opinions. I think you underestimate the power and interests of non governmental organizations (I am not talking about NGO's like doctors without borders ore something). Again, I could be wrong as to what is the bigger threat. And I am open to facts and findings that will prove me wrong. 

 

15 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Having said that, and precisely because it's the actual letter of the law what matters (especially in non-common law countries), I think we need more information on the details before reaching a conclusion, and I would accept that OP talked more about his point of view than about how he formed it.

Yes I agree with this. In continental law the letter of the law is very important. I would like to see how the final proposal will turn out. 

 

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

* alleged meddling

(I could even say "conveniently alleged"),

Yes. I was wrong. I should've said "alleged meddling". The allegations were never really proven. Sorry for the mistake. 

[InertiaSelling]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I think we need more information on the details before reaching a conclusion, and I would accept that OP talked more about his point of view than about how he formed it.

You're right, I decided to post this here because it matters to me, so I am indeed opinionated. It would be pretty long and a bit out of scope to tell you how exactly I formed my point of view, though, because it stems from academic literature rather than news articles that could be quoted here. Anyway, I agree with you that we still need to read the actual proposal. I just happen to find the announcement quite worrisome.

 

3 minutes ago, Ansger said:

I don't think France is especially susceptible to this as there are a lot of checks on governmental use of powers.

While I agree with you on what you just said about freedom of speech, I'd like to know what you're referring to here. The fifth Republic was built to allow a government to act despite complete opposition from the Parliament, which De Gaulle always castigated for being prone to "palaver".

[Misanthrope]

15 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

When has Trump ever mentioned infowars as an alternative? He usually goes to Fox News. I only see Infowars from memeing Trump supporters

Close enough:

 

 

[Ansger]

Just now, InertiaSelling said:

You're right, I decided to post this here because it matters to me, so I am indeed opinionated. It would be pretty long and a bit out of scope to tell you how exactly I formed my point of view, though, because it stems from academic literature rather than news articles that could be quoted here. Anyway, I agree with you that we still need to read the actual proposal. I just happen to find the announcement quite worrisome.

 

While I agree with you on what you just said about freedom of speech, I'd like to know what you're referring to here. The fifth Republic was built to allow a government to act despite complete opposition from the Parliament, which De Gaulle always castigated for being prone to "palaver".

I'm mainly referring to judicial overview and direct application of European law and international treaties on human rights. Parliamentary control on the government is is in most states not the main check on the government as the government is in most cases appointed by the parliament. The chances of the government doing things that don't reflect the will of the parliament are small. Also. It is important to note that it is not the government that makes the laws, but rather the parliament. Macron (and by extension the government only deliver proposals).

But as i was saying: I'm mainly referring to european oversight and judicial checks on executional powers. I know these aren't perfect and can fail (see for example Poland) but i think they go a long way to preventing a transition to a police state.

[InertiaSelling]

1 hour ago, Ansger said:

The chances of the government doing things that don't reflect the will of the parliament are small. Also. It is important to note that it is not the government that makes the laws, but rather the parliament. Macron (and by extension the government only deliver proposals).

The fifth Republic is the opposite. The President is elected before the Parliament, and most laws actually come from the government (they're called projects, as opposed to propositions when they come from the Assembly or the Senate). When he has a majority in Parliament, which is always the case since the constitutional revision of 2000, he has almost complete control over the Prime Minister's actions and, therefore, the ministers'. There are also a number of constitutional ways for the government to accelerate or hinder the legislative process, decide who has the final say in which matter, or even enact laws without a vote in Parliament. As for the EU, it is indeed powerful, but our "garde à vue" (a special kind of police custody) and "état d'urgence" still violate a number of international and european treaties, and haven't been repelled despite numerous warnings. There are a few reasons to think France is pretty susceptible to questionable uses of law.

[TheCherryKing]

Anything and everything the government and silicon valley disagree with is fake news.

[mr moose]

I've always maintained anything said that can be absolutely proven to cause harm or defaming (E.G recommending people drink bleach as a health remedy or accusing someone of rape without a guilty verdict from a court) should be considered fake news or criminal endangerment.  The fact of the matter is there are a lot of gullible people out there and not every can be expected to know the difference. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, Ansger said:

 

Anecdotes don't cover the impact of something. In the US people where ran over by white supremacists disguising their acts under "freedom of speech". See how easy it is to find anecdotes of stuff to force a debate in a certain direction?  

The fact that this one woman was victim to a questionable law does not mean the law should not exist. 

I think you are conflating anecdotes and examples. I gave a quick example of how absurd things can get under the law, but that's not even its main point: it is far more worrisome in terms of internet activity, public demonstrations, who can be held accountable for a number of things, severe limits on how much foul language you can use when referring to officials (mostly none) in almost any context, and the limits of what is considered "public" communication and "private" communication (e.g., a closed whatsapp group is not necessarily considered "private", and if the judge decides it qualifies as "public" then you can get in trouble for things you said in that closed group). It is a lot more than a fine and a silly bag, it's just that I don't know a good source in English about it. But you cna try your luck googling for "Ley mordaza", as it was nicknamed ("gag law"); perhaps someone covered the controversy at depth somewhere else.

[Notional]

Sweden, Germany, UK and France in that order has gone full stasi the later years. It boggles the mind that these people can be so idiotic.

[Matu20]

I should be able to post fake news if I wanted, why would the government crack down on it?