Pass a simple law – “IT IS AN OFFENCE BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TO MISLEAD” .
Nothing needs to be said to explain this proposal which is likely to affect the public statements of internet users, news media, politicians and advertisers. But much needs to be said to address many common objections, misconceptions or doubts.
IF IT WAS THAT SIMPLE WHY HASN’T IT BEEN DONE BEFORE? Before the advent of the Internet misleading was not a great problem and the most obvious examples such as fraud, defamation or misrepresentation had been dealt with by specific laws. It is the explosive growth of misinformation in the 21st century that now makes such a law necessary.
PROVING INTENT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. It is not necessary to prove intent. If a person makes public utterances, then he or she must take responsibility for the accuracy of what they say. It is not reasonable to allow someone an out by simply claiming that they made a mistake.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LYING AND MISLEADING? There are two important differences. Misleading can be inadvertent, lying is deliberate. And it is possible to tell the truth with intent to mislead.
DEFINING “MISLEAD” WOULD BE DIFFICULT. It would be a mistake to attempt a specific legal definition. The dictionary definition, for example “cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression” is perfectly adequate and makes the law easily understandable to a layman.
THE LAWYERS WOULD HAVE A FIELD DAY AND YOU WOULD FILL THE COURTS. As with stealing, the only cases that would reach the courts would be those where the consequences were substantial. It might be that at first there is a flurry of cases as people test the new law. But in time the volume will reduce as people become generally compliant.
THIS IS AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH. There are already curbs on free speech, for example on raising a riot or on hate speech. This proposal does not prevent people from speaking their minds it just requires them to be careful how they present what they have to say. In particular, anything that is clearly marked as an opinion would not be an offence.
IT WILL MAKE THE NEWSPAPERS TOO NERVOUS TO SPEAK OUT. It will certainly change, as it is intended to, how the media present what they want to convey. They might be more careful with researching their facts. They might be more careful as to how they distinguish between information that is factual or tentative. In particular, they might choose to label some material as opinion allowing readers to judge it more critically.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REGULATE. No regulation is required for civil cases, injured parties will simply make a case if they consider it is worth doing. In criminal cases it is only those with a significant impact that need to be prosecuted. It might be that we would need to set up a panel of some kind to judge which of those cases referred to it should be prosecuted.
1206-11