THE PRECONDITIONS FOR THE LEGAL MECHANISMS DEVELOPMENT TO COMBAT DISINFORMATION IN SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL SECURITY: FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

Authors

  • Anatolii Marushchak

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51989/NUL.2021.6.14

Keywords:

disinformation, legal mechanism, social media, national security, freedom of speech

Abstract

The article deals with the preconditions for the legal mechanisms development to combat disinformation in social media in the context of national security. The conclusion is formulated on the necessity of the development of such mechanisms on the basis of constitutional freedom of speech principle, with legislative definition of the exclusive possible restriction list in social media for the sake of national security. It is noted that the difference between legal and corporate internal norms of regulation of social media companies directly affects the effectiveness of national interests’ protection both in the United States and Ukraine. Because the non-binding provisions of the First Amendment of the US Constitution for private entities determine the orientation of social media companies to make a profit, although the policy of Facebook and Google adheres to the principles of freedom of speech. In the context of capacity building of the Centre for Countering Disinformation, counteracting disinformation campaigns for national security reasons requires a combination of efforts of the Centre with the national cybersecurity system, and with regulatory bodies of the media, strategic communications units of Ukraine Government in close cooperation with the private sector, primarily social media companies, and civil society. It is concluded that compared to the US government, Ukrainian government has broader constitutional preconditions for the national security interests’ protection, particularly in connection with Russian Federation aggression. It is noted that regulations on combating disinformation in social networks should take into account international human rights requirements, national interests, as well as business processes of social media companies.

References

Про Стратегію кібербезпеки України : Рішення Ради національної безпеки і оборони України від 14 травня 2021 року, уведене в дію Указом Президента України від 26 серпня 2021 року № 447/2021. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/4472021-40013.

Положення про Центр протидії дезінформації, затверджене Указом Президента України від 7 травня 2021 року № 187/2021. Офіційний вісник Президента України. 2021. № 15. Ст. 774.

Preuss L. International Responsibility for Hostile Propaganda against Foreign States. American Journal of International Law. 1934. № 28(4). Р. 649–668.

Anupam Chander. Internet Intermediaries as Platforms for Expression and Innovation. Glob. Commission on Internet Governance. 2016. № 42.

Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis. 2017. Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. Report. Data & Society Research Institute. URL: https://datasociety.net/output/mediamanipulation-and-disinfo-online/.

Kyle Langvardt. Regulating Online Content Moderation, Georgetown Law Journal. 2018. Vol. 106. Issue 5.

Bonnie Brennen (2017), Making Sense of Lies, Deceptive Propaganda, and Fake News. Journal of Media Ethics. 2017. № 3. Р. 32.

Jankowicz N. The Only Way to Defend Against Russia’s Information War, The New York Times. 2017. Sept. 25. URL: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/the-only-way-todefend-against-russias-informationwar.html.

Jack M. Balkin. The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 2009. Iss. 2. URL: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol36/iss2/9.

Hamilton, Rebecca J., Governing the Global Public Square (March 25, 2020). Harvard International Law Journal. 2021, American University, WCL Research Paper № 2020–17. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3426544.

Загальна декларація з прав людини від 10.12.1948. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_015#Text.

Міжнародний пакт про громадянські та політичні права від 16.12.1966. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_043#Text.

Конституція України. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2% D1%80#Text.

Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 168 n. 16 (1979).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

Constitution annotated. Amdt1.2.2.3 Procedural Matters and Freedom of Speech: Prior Restraints. URL: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-2-3/ALDE_00000396/#essay-14.

ODNI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security recently released an unclassified summary of a joint comprehensive threat assessment of domestic violent extremism. March 1, 2021. URL: https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/UnclassSummaryofDVEAssessment-17MAR21.pdf.

Marvin Ammori, The “New” New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter, 127 HARV. L. REV. 2259 (2014).

Erika Morphy (Aug. 24, 2006), Google, Brazil Lock Horns Over Social Networking Data, Tech News World. URL: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/privacy/52624.html.

Jennifer Daskal. Whose Law Governs in a Borderless World? URL: https://constitutioncenter.org/digital-privacy/whose-law-governs-in-a-borderless-world#footnote-24.

Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf. March 2021.

Ukraine Cybersecurity Cooperation Act of 2017, 115 H.R. 1997, 2018 H.R. 1997, 115 H.R. 1997. April 6, 2017.

Published

2021-12-27

Issue

Section

TOPICAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC LAW