![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Against the backdrop of the regulatory furore over ‘fake news’, this article examines the protection that is afforded to untruthful expression by the European Court of Human Rights and by national courts in Germany, the UK and the US. It argues that the suppression of ‘fake news’ in the face of uncertainty over the contours of this highly politicised term and of the evidentiary vacuum as to the harm posed, may run counter to constitutional guarantees of free speech. Regulatory interventions seeking to curb the flow of ‘fake news’, which is not per se illegal, require careful consideration lest they should empower governments or unaccountable technology corporations without editorial culture to become the arbiters of truth.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Jackie Harrison, Jacob Rowbottom and Kyu Ho Youm for their insightful comments and encouragement. The usual disclaimer applies. All websites in this article were last accessed on 12 October 2018.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributors
Irini Katsirea is Reader in International Media Law at the University of Sheffield, UK. Her current research focuses on the challenges posed to press regulation by digitalisation and convergence and on the limits of free speech online. She is principal investigator of a collaborative research project for IPSO on ‘Examining the impact of IPSO on editorial standards and complaints handling’ (2017–18).
Notes
1 C. Silvermann and D. Alexander, ‘How Teens in the Balkans are Duping Trump Supporters with Fake News’ <https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.abwQX0Y5JL#.psmLE4WAZp>.
2 For other European initiatives such as the French ‘fake news’ bills of October 2018, see LSE Commission on Truth, Trust and Technology, ‘Tackling the Information Crisis: A Policy Framework for Media System Resilience’, November 2018, 51 <http://www.lse.ac.uk/law/news/2018/truth-trust-technology>.
3 P. Bernal, ‘Fakebook: Why Facebook Makes the Fake News Problem Inevitable’ (2018) 69 (4) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 513.
4 B. Holznagel, ‘Phänomen “Fake News” – Was ist zu tun? Ausmaß und Durchschlagskraft von Desinformationskampagnen’ (2018) 1 MultiMedia und Recht 18.
5 G. Pennycook, T. D. Cannon and D.G. Rand, ‘Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News’ (2018) 147(12) Journal of Experimental Psychology 1865; P. Schneiders, ‘Gegen Fake News ist niemand immun’, <http://www.ard.de/home/ard/Was_die_Wissenschaft_zu_Fake_News_sagt/3733254/index.html?articleSectionIndex=0>.
6 R. Blasius, ‘Unwort des Jahres: Von der Journaille zur Lügenpresse’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt am Main, 13 January 2015) <http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/unwort-des-jahres-eine-kleine-geschichte-der-luegenpresse-13367848.html>; see T. McGonagle, ‘“Fake News”: False Fears or Real Concerns?’ (2017) 35(4) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 203, 205 et seq for historic examples of ‘fake news’.
7 C. Wardle and H. Derakhshan, ‘Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking’, Council of Europe report DGI (2017) 09, 27 September 2017 <https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c>; European Association for Viewers Interests, ‘Infographic: Beyond Fake News – Ten Types of Misleading News – Nine Languages’ <https://eavi.eu/beyond-fake-news-10-types-misleading-info/>.
8 House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘Disinformation and “Fake News”: Interim Report’, HC 363, 29 July 2018, <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdf>.
9 R. K. Nielsen and L. Graves, ‘“News You Don't Believe”: Audience Perspectives on Fake News’ (Oxford University, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Factsheet October 2017) <https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Nielsen%26Graves_factsheet_1710v3_FINAL_download.pdf>.
10 G. Cunningham, ‘Avoid the Misnomer “Fake News”’, 20 February 2017 <https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2017/02/avoid-the-misnomer-fake-news/>.
11 D. Nuccitelli, ‘The Mail's Censure Shows Which Media Outlets Are Biased on Climate Change’, 25 September 2017 <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/25/the-mails-censure-shows-which-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change>; ‘US Media Fight Back Against Trump Attacks’, 16 August 2018 <https://www.dw.com/en/us-media-fight-back-against-trump-attacks/a-45101206>.
12 Ofcom, ‘The Ofcom Broadcasting Code (with the Cross-Promotion Code and the On Demand Programme Service Rules)’, 3 April 2017, <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code>; An Agreement Between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cm 9366), December 2016, Schedule 3.3 <https://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/bbccharterandagreement>.
13 BBC Editorial Guidelines, <https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines>.
14 K. Marsh, ‘Kevin Marsh, ex-Executive Director, BBC College of Journalism on Issues of Impartiality in News and Current Affairs’ (2012) 1 (1) Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, 69, 76; for a recent case of a breach of the obligation of due accuracy under s. 5.1 of the Ofcom Code see Ofcom's Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin, Issue 351 of 9 April 2018, ‘BBC Radio 4, 10 August 2017, 6:00’, p. 12.
15 M. Doherty, ‘Should Making False Statements in a Referendum Campaign Be an Electoral Offence?’, 4 July 2016, <https://uk.constitutionallaw.org>.
16 R. Sambrook, ‘Delivering Trust: Impartiality and Objectivity in the Digital Age’, July 2012, <https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/delivering-trust-impartiality-and-objectivity-digital-age>; see, however, the BBC's position on climate change reporting in L. Hickman, ‘Exclusive: BBC issues internal guidance on how to report climate change’, 7 September 2018, <https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change>.
17 IPSO, ‘Editors’ Code of Practice’ <https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/> (referred to in the following as ‘IPSO Code’); IMPRESS, ‘The IMPRESS Standards Code’ <https://impress.press/standards/impress-standards-code.html>.
18 IPSO Code, Clause 1 s. 1.
19 IPSO, Decision of the Complaints Committee 01584-16 Buckingham Palace v The Sun, 20 April 2016 <https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01584-16>.
20 IMPRESS, ‘Written Evidence Submitted by IMPRESS: The Independent Monitor for the Press’, March 2017 <https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>.
21 H. Allcott and M. Gentzkow, ‘Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election’ (2017) (31) (2) Journal of Economic Perspectives 211, 214.
22 IMPRESS, Trust in journalism sinks to all-time low as YouGov Poll reveals public demand for decent standards of journalism, 5 December 2016 <http://www.impress.press/news/yougov-poll.html>.
23 C. Wardle, ‘Fake News. It's Complicated’, 16 February 2017 <https://firstdraftnews.com/fake-news-complicated/>.
24 A. Meade, ‘The Onion in the Age of Trump: ‘What We Do Becomes Essential when its Targets are this Clownish’ <https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/aug/28/the-onion-in-the-age-of-trump-what-we-do-becomes-essential-when-its-targets-are-this-clownish>.
25 D. Coast, J. Fox and D. Welch, ‘Written Evidence’, March 2017 <https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>; see Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v Austria (2008) 47 EHRR 5, para 33.
26 Cf Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway, Application Nummer 21980/93 at [63].
27 A. Mosseri, ‘A New Educational Tool Against Misinformation’, 6 April 2017 <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/04/a-new-educational-tool-against-misinformation/>; L. Bounegru, J. Gray, T. Venturini and M. Mauri, ‘A Field Guide to Fake News. A Collection of Recipes for those Who Love to Cook with Digital Methods’, January 2018 <https://fakenews.publicdatalab.org/>.
28 Nazi slut case, Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg, Az. 324 O 217/17, 11 Mai 2017; Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988).
29 Wardle and Derakhshan, n 7 above, 33.
30 W. L. Bennet and S. Livingston, ‘The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions’ (2018) 33 (2) European Journal of Communication 122, 124; Y. Benkler, R. Faris and H. Roberts, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalisation in American Politics (OUP 2018), 6.
31 European Commission, A Multidimensional Approach to Disinformation, Report of the High Level Group on fake news and disinformation (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018) <file:///C:/Users/Irini%20Katsirea/Downloads/Amulti-dimensionalapproachtodisinformation-ReportoftheindependentHighlevelGrouponfakenewsandonlinedisinformation.pdf>
32 Ibid.
33 Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng [2001] EMLR 31, 777.
34 ‘Fake Terror Report Sparks Backlash in Germany’, 26 March 2018 <https://www.dw.com/en/fake-terror-blog-report-sparks-backlash-in-germany/a-43145395>.
35 In Germany, the offence of s. 126 (2) StGB penalises the breach of the pubic peace by knowingly pretending that the commission of an unlawful act is imminent.
36 D. Jolley and K. Douglas, ‘The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions’ (2014) 9(2) PLOS ONE.
37 D. O. Klein and J. R. Wueller, ‘Fake News: A Legal Perspective’ (2017) 20(10) Journal of Internet Law 5.
38 C. Brinkhurst-Cuff, ‘MPs to Investigate Threat to Democracy from “Fake News”’, 29 January 2017, <www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/29/fake-news-mps-investigate-threat-democracy>.
39 Ofcom, ‘Written Evidence Submitted by Ofcom to the “Fake News” Inquiry’, March 2017, <https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>.
40 G. Ruddick, ‘Experts Sound Alarm Over News Websites Fake News’ Twins’, 18 August 2017, <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/18/experts-sound-alarm-over-news-websites-fake-news-twins>.
41 ‘Barack Obama: Fake News is a Threat to Democracy-Video’, 18 November 2016, <https://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2016/nov/18/barack-obama-fake-news-is-a-threat-to-democracy-video>; ‘CDU Politiker wollen Strafverschärfung’, 13 Dezember 2016, <http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fake-news-unionspolitiker-wollen-strafverschaerfung-bei-gefaelschten-nachrichten-a-1125611.html>.
42 C. Silverman, ‘This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook’, 16 November 2016, <https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.dg9NjgZYx#.bm29vjXYr>.
43 B. Barthell, A. Mitchell and J. Holcomb, ‘Many Americans Believe Fake News is Sowing Confusion’, December 2016, <file:///U:/ManW7/Downloads/PJ_2016.12.15_fake-news_FINAL%20(1).pdf>.
44 J. Jackson, ‘Mark Zuckerberg Vows More Action to Tackle Fake News on Facebook’, 13 November 2016, <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/13/mark-zuckerberg-vows-more-action-to-tackle-fake-news-on-facebook>.
45 M. Zuckerberg, ‘Building Global Community’, 16 February 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-community/10154544292806634>.
46 J. Weedon, W. Nuland and A. Stamos, ‘Information Operations and Facebook’, 27 April 2017, <https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/facebook-and-information-operations-v1.pdf>.
47 Allcott and Gentzkow, n 21 above, 223.
48 Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, ‘Fake News: An Optimistic Take’, 17 January 2017, <https://rasmuskleisnielsen.net/2017/01/17/fake-news-an-optimistic-take/>; S. Hill et al., ‘How Quickly We Forget: The Duration of Persuasion Effects from Mass Communication’ (2013) 30(4) Political Communication 521–47.
49 A. Guess, B. Nyhan and J. Reifler, ‘Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the Consumption of Fake News During the 2016 US Presidential Campaign’, <https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf>.
50 B. Martens et al., ‘The Digital Transformation of News Media and the Rise of Disinformation and Fake News’, April 2018 <https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc111529.pdf>.
51 C. R. Sunstein, Republic. Com 2.0 (Princeton University Press 2007).
52 N. Newman, ‘Overview and Findings of the 2017 Report, Reuters Institute Digital News Report at <http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2017/overview-key-findings-2017/>; W. Dutton et al., ‘Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United States’, 1 May 2017 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2960697>; R. Fletcher and R. K. Nielsen, ‘Is Social Media Use Associated with More or Less Diverse News Use?’, 25 November 2016 <https://rasmuskleisnielsen.net/2016/11/25/is-social-media-use-associated-with-more-or-less-diverse-news-use/>.
53 L. Boxell, M. Gentzkow and J. Shapiro, ‘Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics’ (National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23258, March 2017) <https://www.brown.edu/Research/Shapiro/pdfs/age-polars.pdf>; E. Bakshy, S. Messing and L. Adamic, ‘Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook’ (2015) 348(6239) Science 1130–32.
54 M. Balmas, ‘When Fake News Becomes Real: Combined Exposure to Multiple News Sources and Political Attitudes of Inefficacy, Alienation and Cynicism’ (2014) 41(3) Communication Research 430–54.
55 S. Vosoughi, D. Roy and S. Aral, ‘The Spread of True and False News Online’ (2018) 359 Science 1146–51.
56 C. Beckett, ‘What Does the Trump Triumph Mean for Journalism, Politics and Social Media?’, 13 November 2016 <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2016/11/13/what-does-the-trump-triumph-mean-for-journalism-politics-and-social-media/>.
57 R. Spearman, ‘Fake News and Financial Market Blues’ (2017) 8 Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 488.
58 Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737 para 49.
59 Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245 para 41; Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 para 41; Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) 14 EHRR 153 para 75.
60 Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) 14 EHRR 153 para 59.
61 McVicar v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 21.
62 Tønsberg Blad AS and Marit Haukom v. Norway (2008) 46 EHRR 30; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125; Selistö v Finland (2006) 42 EHRR 8; Fuchsmann v Germany, application no. 71233/13, nyr, para 45.
63 Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 para 46.
64 GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v Switzerland, App no 18597/13 (ECtHR, 9 January 2018), para 68; De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1998) 25 EHRR 1 at [47]; Prager and Oberschlick v Austria case (1996) 21 EHRR 1 para 37.
65 Haldimann and Others v Switzerland [2015] ECHR 215 para 45.
66 Recommendation No. R (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the rights of journalists not to disclose their sources of information, 8 March 2000, Appendix.
67 Recommendation CM/Rec (2011) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on a new notion of media, 21 September 2011, Appendix para 41.
68 Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR 22; see also Braun v Poland [2014] ECHR 1419 para 47.
69 Fattulayev v Azerbaijan (2011) 52 EHRR 2 para 95.
70 See J. Rowbottom, ‘To Rant, Vent and Converse: Protecting Low Level Digital Speech’ (2012) 71(2) Cambridge Law Journal 355, 376.
71 ibid para 40.
72 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the system of UK press regulation, which though fragmented, provides more oversight than currently exists for social media.
73 I am grateful for inspiration for this section and fruitful discussion to Lorna Woods who gave a seminar at the Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield on Wednesday 24 May 2017.
74 Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245; Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843.
75 Wingrove v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 1 para. 58; Otto Preminger v Austria (1995) 19 EHRR 34; Müller v Switzerland (1998) 13 EHRR 212.
76 Markt Intern and Beermann v Germany (1990) 12 EHRR 161.
77 ITN, ‘Written Evidence Submitted by Ofcom to the “Fake News” Inquiry’, March 2017 <https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>.
78 J. Ball, Post-Truth: How Bullshit Conquered the World (Biteback Publishing 2017).
79 Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245; Markt Intern and Beermann v Germany (1990) 12 EHRR 161; Autronic AG v Switzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 485 para 47; Casado Coca v Spain para 35.
80 Markt Intern and Beermann v Germany (1990) 12 EHRR 161 para 25.
81 D. Tambini, ‘Fake News: Public Policy Responses’ (London School of Economics and Political Science, Media Policy Project, Media Policy Brief 20), 11 <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/73015/>.
82 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v Switzerland (2013) 56 EHRR 14 para 62.
83 ibid, joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska and Vučinić.
84 Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v Switzerland (2013) 56 EHRR 14 para 72.
85 ibid, para 75.
86 Hertel v Switzerland (1999) 38 EHRR 534 para 47.
87 ibid, para 50.
88 Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 para 65.
89 LSE, ‘Tackling the Information Crisis’, 9.
90 M. Hertig Randall, ‘Commercial Speech under the European Convention on Human Rights: Subordinate or Equal?’ (2006) 6(1) European Human Rights Law Review 53, 80; Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council 425 US 748 (1976) para 771 n 24.
91 TV Vest AS and Rogalandpensjonistparti v Norway (2009) 48 EHRR 51 para 67; Animal Defenders v International United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 21 para 123.
92 Garaudi v France, no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX.
93 H., W., P. and K. v Austria, no. 12774/87, Commission decision of 12 October 1989, DR 62, 216; Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands v Germany, Commission decision of 29 November 1995, DR 84, 149. For a detailed discussion of these and further cases see L. Pech, ‘The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe: Towards a Qualified EU-Wide Criminal Prohibition’ (New York School of Law, Jean Monnet Working Paper 10/09, 2009) <https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/paper/the-law-of-holocaust-denial-in-europe-towards-a-qualified-eu-wide-criminal-prohibition/>.
94 Lehideux and Isorni v France [2000] 30 EHRR 665 paras 47, 55; see also Chauvy and Others v France, no. 64915/01, para 69; Monnat v Switzerland, no. 73604/01, para 57.
95 Perinçek v Switzerland, no. 27510/08 (ECtHR, 15 October 2015), para 213 et seq; see also Perinçek v Switzerland, no. 27510/08 (ECtHR, 17 December 2013), para 114 et seq.
96 Perinçek v Switzerland, no. 27510/08 (ECtHR, 15 October 2015), para 280.
97 Perinçek v Switzerland, no. 27510/08 (ECtHR, 17 December 2013), para 117.
98 BVerfGE 93, 266 (1995) ('Soldiers are Murderers’ case).
99 R. Ricker and J. Weberling, Handbuch des Presserechts (6th edn, C. H. Beck, Munich, 2012), 489 para. 5.
100 BVerfGE 85, 1 (1991) (‘Critical shareholders’ case).
101 BVerfGE 90, 241 (1994) (‘Ausschwitz Lie’ case).
102 BVerfGE 54, 208 (‘Böll’ case).
103 BVerfGE 90, 241 (1994) (‘Ausschwitz Lie’ case).
104 ibid; BVerfGE 90, 1 (1994) (‘War Guilt’ case).
105 BVerfGE 82, 272 (1990) (‘Coerced Democrat’ case).
106 See H. D. Jarass, D. Pieroth, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (12th edn, C. H. Beck, Munich, 2012) Art. 5 para 4a;
107 L. Brost, C. Conrad and F. J. Rödder, ‘Einholung und Berücksichtigung der Stellungnahme bei der Verdachtsberichterstattung’ (2018) 4 Archiv für Presserecht 287.
108 For more detail on these possibilities of legal redress see Holznagel, n. 4 above.
109 Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks (Network Enforcement Act) (Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – NetzDG)) of 1 September 2017, BGBl 2017 Teil I Nr. 61 <www.bmjv.de/DE/Themen/FokusThemen/NetzDG/NetzDG_node.html>; Friedhelm, ‘Hate-Speech-Gesetz: Regierung kennt keine einzige strafbare Falschnachricht’, 19 April 2017 <www.golem.de/news/hate-speech-gesetz-regierung-kennt-keine-einzige-strafbare-falschnachricht-1704-127370.html>.
110 G. Nolte, ‘Hate-Speech, Fake News, das ‘Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz’ und Vielfaltsicherung durch Suchmaschinen’ (2017) (7) Zeitschrift für Urheber-und Medienrecht 552, 555.
111 Draft Network Enforcement Act of 14 June 2017, German Parliament document 18127/27, 4.
112 Network Enforcement Act, s. 3 (2), 4 (2).
113 Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Ausarbeitung: Entwurf eines Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes. Vereinbarkeit mit der Meinungsfreiheit’, 12 June 2017 <https://www.bundestag.de/blob/510514/eefb7cf92dee88ec74ce8e796e9bc25c/wd-10-037-17-pdf-data.pdf>; K.-H. Ladeur and T. Gostomzyk, ‘Das Netzwerkdurchsetungsgesetz und die Logik der Meinungsfreiheit. Ergebnisse eines Gutachtens zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Regierungsentwurfs’ (2017) 6 Kommunikation & Recht 390; J. Wimmers and B. Heymann, ‘Zum Referentenentwurf eines Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes (NetzDG) – eine kritische Stellungnahme’ (2017) 2 Archiv für Presserecht 93; T. Feldmann, ‘Zum Referentenentwurf eines NetzDG – eine kritische Betrachtung’ (2017) 5 Kommunikation & Recht 292.
114 LG Berlin, 31 O 21/18, 23 March 2018 <https://dejure.org/2018,8228>; LG Hamburg, 324 O 51/18, 30 April 2018 <https://dejure.org/2018,10548>.
115 P. Leyland, The Constitution of the United Kingdom. A Contextual Analysis (3rd edn, Hart 2016), Ch. 2.
116 Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42, s. 12.
117 J. Rowbottom, Written Submission, March 2017 <https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>, para. 6.
118 Defamation Act 2013 (Commencement) (England and Wales) Order 2013, SI 2013/3027.
119 Representation of the People Act 1983, c. 2, s. 106; UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code), s. 3; The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Reg. 5; Fraud Act 2006, c. 35; The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill [HL] 2017–19 that aims to attach criminal sanctions to the unauthorised use of medals is currently going through Parliament.
120 R (on the application of Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Court [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin), para 106.
121 R (on the application of Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Court [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin), para 110.
122 J. Rowbottom, ‘Lies, manipulation and elections – Controlling false campaign statements’ (2012) 32(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 507, 528 et seq.
123 Leonard Hector Appellant v Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda and Others Respondents [1990] 2 WLR 606; [1990] 2 AC 312.
124 A. W. Bradley, ‘Case Comment. Press Freedom, Governmental Constraints and the Privy Council’ (1990) Public Law 453.
125 Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee, ‘Fake News Inquiry’, March 2017 <www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/>.
126 Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee, ‘Fake News’, September 2017 <www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/fake-news-17-19/>.
127 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978).
128 Abrams v United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
129 E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd edn, OUP 2005), 51.
130 A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (Harper 1960), 27.
131 R. Post, ‘Participatory Democracy and Free Speech’ (2011) 97(3) Virginia Law Review 477, 484.
132 F. Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (CUP 1982).
133 See S. Ingber, ‘The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth’ (1984) 1 Duke Law Journal 1; A. Goldman and J. Cox, ‘Speech, Truth and the Free Market for Ideas’ (1996) 2 Legal Theory 1; D. Strauss, ‘Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression’ (1991) 91 Columbia Law Review 334, 349.
134 Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 (1974); cf. New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) as regards the higher standard of liability for public persons.
135 ibid; Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 572 (1942); see also Garrison v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964); Bose Corp. v Consumers Union of US, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 504, n 22 (1984).
136 United States v Alvarez, 132 U.S. 2537 (2012).
137 ibid, 2545.
138 Boos v Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
139 McIntyre v Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 349 (1995).
140 Susan Anthony List v Driehaus, 134 U.S. 2334 (2014).
141 List v Ohio Elections Com’n, 45 F. Supp. 3d 765 (2014).
142 281 Care Committee v Arneson, 766 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2014).
143 J. Sellers, ‘Legislating Against Lying in Campaigns and Elections’ (2018) 71(1) Oklahoma Law Review 141, 143; see Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2018, 26 July 2018 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3279/text?format=txt>.
144 Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919); see A. Sarat, Law and Lies. Deception and Truth-Telling in the American Legal System (CUP 2015), 178.
145 P. Callan, ‘Sue Over Fake News? Not So Fast’ <https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/suing-fake-news-not-so-fast-callan/index.htm>; contra A. Hundley, ‘Fake News and the First Amendment: How False Political Speech Kills the Marketplace of Ideas’ (2017) 92 Tulane Law Review 497.
146 Whitney v California, 247 US 352 (1927).
147 Such an evidence-based approach underlies the recommendations made in the 2018 High Level Group report, n 31 above; see also The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression et al., ‘Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda’, 3 March 2017 <https://www.osce.org/fom/302796?download=true>.
148 V. Marda and S. Milan, ‘Wisdom of the Crowd: Multistakeholder Perspectives on the Fake News Debate’, 21 May 2018 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184458>.
149 T. Gibbons, ‘“Fair Play to All Sides of the Truth”: Controlling Media Distortions’ (2009) 62(1) Current Legal Problems 286, 299.
150 Barendt, n 105, 7, 18.
151 J. S. Mill, On Liberty (Batoche Books, Kitchener, 2001), 34; J. Milton, Areopagitica; and, of Education (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973), 38; contra S. Schiffrin, Speech Matters. On Lying, Morality and the Law (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014), 140 et seq.