By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M
Two points about the House Tri-Committee inquiry on disinformation need to be raised. First, lawmakers are giving the impression that vloggers and bloggers are legitimate conduits of news. They are not. Second, lawmakers lean towards regulating social media as the solution to our disinformation problem. Well, it is not that simple. Legislating against online disinformation requires more than just the “righteous indignation” of politicians.
Indeed, the spread of disinformation online is an existential concern because Filipinos practically live in cyberspace. Social media is now totally weaved into how we survive and thrive. Keeping cyberspace and social media safe and secure is therefore imperative. However, with the regards to countering disinformation, it is critical to know first the distinction between opinion and fact.
Fact is “a piece of information presented as having objective reality”, whereas opinion is “a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter”. The statement “Today is Tuesday.” is an example of a statement of fact. While “Today is a lovely day.” is a statement of an opinion. Clearly, they are not the same.
Disinformation exists in the realm of facts because this is where truth and lies can be delineated. For example, whether today is Tuesday can be verified to be true or false. If someone claims that it is Monday, when patently it is Tuesday, then disinformation is being spread in this instance. The key phrase here is “verifiable facts”. Claims of fact can be disputed and corrected, precisely because the truth can be demonstrated.
Generally, disinformation has no place in the realm of opinions because the chief factors here are the credibility of the person expressing the opinion, the motive behind it, and the harmful effect to the subject involved. The veracity of the opinion itself is just a minor consideration in the equation. Whether today is lovely or not will ultimately depend on individual preferences. Strictly speaking, no spreading of disinformation is involved here.
Obviously, it is not always this straightforward. So, let us try this in the context of Philippine politics. If a public official is openly accused of committing plunder, then this involves an assertion of a particular fact. If there is no proof provided by the accuser, then the assertion can be challenged as a lie. There is a duty to present evidentiary support for the claim to escape accusations of spreading disinformation.
On the other hand, if a public official is described as lazy and incompetent, there is no easily demonstrable fact involved here. It is highly possible to encounter many views as to the work ethic and intellect of this public official. Some would probably see him or her as lazy and incompetent, while others would not. Maybe some will straddle between the two extremes. But disinformation does not really come in to play in this scenario.
However, slander and libel will be serious considerations when it comes to expressing opinions. While people are free to express what they think about people, events, and other things, it is wrong to believe that the constitutional right to free speech provides a blanket protection. Expressing opinions can be regulated by law to prevent harm to others and society in general as it is by the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
But an important caveat to this rule must be pointed out, especially in the context of the upcoming elections. According to the Supreme Court in Labargan vs. People, “Statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties, unless the prosecution establishes that they were uttered with actual malice.”
So far, the only valuable insight revealed by the House Tri-Committee hearings is that the fight against online disinformation is not easy. Unfortunately, lawmakers seem content to just name and shame the political vloggers who have criticized them. The reality is, legislating against disinformation will be a big challenge for as long as lawmakers do not appreciate the difference between opinion and fact.
