Session
Al Sur
Cristian Leon
Presentation and discussion with panelists
English
How can we move forward in a discussion about disinformation on the Internet that seems to dominate the agendas around human rights? It is not strange that the consensus for a complex problem that undoubtedly affects the democratic space is that there is no silver bullet. Its complexity goes beyond regulation and self-regulation, digital security, or fact-checking.
One of the many aspects of this issue, which emerges from the controversies in which high-ranking public officials, such as former President Donald Trump or the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, are involved, is the responsibility of public officials regarding the general information they work with.
Taking the framework of the IACHR regarding the right to freedom of expression, it is essential that public officials, especially those of higher rank and hierarchy, remember the special obligations they have, among them, to pronounce on matters of public interest and to verify the facts on which they base their pronouncements reasonably.
With this in mind, Al Sur, a consortium of 11 organizations from academia and civil society working to strengthen human rights in the digital context in Latin America, is organizing this session to present the results of its research on the responsibility of public officials in Latin America, which seeks to clarify new approaches that can help contain disinformation while protecting the right to freedom of expression on the Internet.
In this session, representatives from Academia, Civil Society, Governments, and international organizations will discuss challenges around how policymakers and other stakeholders effectively connect these instruments to national contexts. They will discuss if these opportunities can be open in other regions.
We will start with a short presentation of our study (10 minutes) and then our onsite moderator will ask questions to our panelists for 20 minutes. Then, we will have 15 minutes for questions and comments from the audience and the ones also gathered by Al Sur’s social media.
Report
This session’s discussion was rich as it involved professionals on human rights coming from different areas of expertise (freedom of expression, minorities, and the intersection between human rights and technology). Having discussed the main findings of the Article (“Are public officials´ lies unsustainable or do they have far reaching effects?”), each panelist shared their views on disinformation and public officials' role in the phenomenon
Public officials have regulations limiting what they can and cannot say. Not only ethical but also administrative and criminal regulations. Disinformation and misinformation from public officials have a severe impact on minorities. The pervasive circulation of disinformation and misinformation on social media and its use for profit were raised as causes for concern, urgent attention and potential regulation.
we need to emphasize the role that public official’s disinformation has on minorities.
The session aimed to discuss views on the role and responsibilities of public officials in relation to the spread of disinformation. It involved professionals on human rights coming from different areas of expertise (freedom of expression, minorities, and the intersection between human rights and technology).
Agustina del Campo, Director of CELE, made an introduction to the panel stating that even if a small portion of the disinformation is produced by public officials, celebrities and influencers, they are responsible for most of the interaction and engagement on desinformation content. Hence, their role is not by any means, irrelevant.
Eduardo Bertoni, Representant of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, presented the main findings of the article: “Are public officials´ lies unsustainable or do they have far reaching effects?”. In this article, the authors go into making questions in relation to the accountability of public authorities and their behaviour in social media. Their role makes that they have more responsibility for their speeches, since their accounts are of public interest.
Fernand de Varennes, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, emphasized the necessity to act against disinformation since it is one of the biggest concerns of our time. As complex as it is, desinformation requires holistic approaches. It is important to understand the platforms owners’ role, since their business models might contribute to the spread of disinformation. He warned against the potential consequences of desinformation in relation to harming minorities. Much of desinformation is being targeted at minorities: they are not only targets of disinformation but also hate speech, promoting violence against them and, in some cases, even genocide. In this sense, desinformation can be weaponized, but neither Governments nor platforms are doing enough to prevent this.
In response to Mr. De Varennes comments, Agustina reinforces the complexity of analyzing with disinformation and misinformation, particularly when dealing with minorities, so often impacted by disinfo and hate speech. She also makes the point that the paper aims to highlight the disinformation phenomenon from a different perspective, the existing regulations in the region mandating public officials to speak the “truth”. There is a big amount of energy being put into finding solutions in social media, but not enough in admission and liability coming from the existing regulations, as the article shows.
Mariana Valente, Director of InternetLab, spoke in relation to the Brazilian case. This could be one of the best examples on how public agents can affect information disorders. Currently, there is a documentary investigation going on, in order to understand what has been the role of public officials in relation to the amount of deaths during the pandemic. In Brazil, high ranking officials and even the president were very active in campaigning against vaccines and other measures to protect people against COVID-19. They made propaganda to promote uneffective medicines, according to OMS. These authorities might be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for spreading false information that caused 600.000 deaths. This is an episode that clearly shows the centrality of public authorities and the responsibility in an emergency.
In relation to responses to desinformation, it was mentioned the risks of over regulation. In some parts of the world, Governments are using regulation to act against desinformation to pursue human rights defenders and affect freedom of expression. Responses have mainly aimed to penalize authors or who facilitate this misinformation, but without taking into account all the complexities. Also, it would be wrong to attribute social media and exclusive responsibility of desinformation. We are not denying their role, but they are not the only ones who should be taking accountability for the situation.
Public officials must be accountable. In Colombia, the Government is promoting a legislation to penalize people that say some wrongs or some danger to the honor of public officials. Public officials have special responsibility for their discourse and information that they disseminate. They have a duty to say the truth in their speech. Ethical and legal duties.
In balance, some of the main ideas shared during the session were:
- Public officials have regulations limiting what they can and cannot say. Not only ethical but also administrative and criminal regulations.
- Disinformation and misinformation from public officials have a severe impact on minorities.
- The pervasive circulation of disinformation and misinformation on social media and its use for profit were raised as causes for concern, urgent attention and potential regulation. But social media platforms should not be exclusively held accountable for the disinformation phenomenon. This is a very complex issue that requires complex approaches and solutions.
- It is necessary to find other ways to cope with misinformation that includes the ethical and legal responsibility of public officials. They can not be untouchable in relation to their speech and the information that they spread.
- Cases such as Brazil, where high ranking public officials spread disinformation in relation to the pandemic, are particularly problematic