“Censorious Governments Are Abusing ‘Fake News’ Laws.” Ideas Arena: The Future of News. The Economist, 11 Feb. 2021.
Summary and Review
The Covid-19 pandemic reignited debate over governments' role in regulating public access to information. “Censorious Governments” examines the differences between governments' efforts to combat misinformation and their efforts to censor dissenting opinions, which threatens free speech and democracy.
The author cites examples of governments using claims about misinformation to censor free speech in Egypt, Russia, Hungary, Germany, Turkey, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Misinformation policies in these places appear to be grabs for power and attempts to silence opposing voices rather than efforts to protect the public. These governments have limited what journalists can report and restricted speech that counters the ruling party's stances on a range of issues. The author emphasizes the policies' vague wording and explains that punishment for violating them includes fines and/or prison sentences. Ironically, and even more concerning, leadership in some of the aforementioned places have been identified as the source of misinformation, such as Brazil’s leader, who “downplayed the dangers of covid-19 and touted ineffective pills,” and Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, who “has prescribed saunas and hockey as cures for covid-19.”
The author’s fear is that in the past, policies like those mentioned have laid the groundwork for authoritarianism. In Hungary, sources have become unwilling to talk to journalists, and the “government has become more secretive.” Hungary's new federal “Operative Unit” now handles journalist inquiries for nearly every organization, including “local hospitals, schools and municipalities.” Myanmar’s governmental “’True News Information Team’ exists largely to suppress reports about crimes committed by the army, which since February 1, 2020 has been in charge of the whole country.” The author cites several similar examples from countries across the globe.
This article is especially relevant and timely, as President Biden’s administration announced in April 2022 that it created a Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board whose focus will be regulating speech related to elections, the pandemic, and other topics. The Board and its charge sound ominously similar to policies the author describes as attempts to restrict free speech and limit journalists' access to information in other countries.
The digital age poses new and unique challenges related to journalism, free speech, and their governance. This article and discussions based on it should be part of any course on journalism, civics/government, speech, history, and politics, or any course that teaches critical thinking, information literacy, or narrative analysis. I plan to use it in all composition and journalism courses I teach.
Lesson Plan: Regulating Free Speech and Access to Information Discussion
Have students read “Censorious Governments" during class or as preparatory homework. Consider asking them to bring to class their written summary of the article. Or, cover the article's main ideas and examples in a lecture. Then, facilitate a discussion using the questions below.
Each "side" in the article has a narrative explaining how it seeks to protect the public: Governments mentioned in the article claim they are preventing harm from misinformation about Covid, while free speech advocates claim they are protecting the public from having its freedom violated. Which narrative do you believe. Why? How did or would you decide which side's narrative to believe?
How might your decision about which narrative to believe change if you lived in one of the countries mentioned in the article?
Do you see any examples of similar narratives in the U.S.? If not, why not? If so, give an example.
Should global crises, such as a pandemic, change how governments regulate the public's access to information? how governments regulate free speech? Why or why not?
Should journalists' or the public's access to any information be limited? If not, why not? If so, what kinds of information shouldn't be public/accessible to journalists and why?
Should free speech have any limits (e.g., pornography, live streaming of violence or murder, hate speech)? If not, why? If so, what limits?
What new or unique challenges does technology pose to preventing the spread of harmful misinformation? to protecting or regulating free speech?
In 2022, Elon Musk planned to purchase Twitter, saying he would make public its content-regulating policies and algorithms. Would that help or harm efforts to prevent the spread of misinformation? Would that help or harm free speech?
Is it necessary for the U.S. to have a Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board? If not, why not? If so, what should its responsibilities include?
Does the Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board threaten free speech? Why or why not?
Is there a difference between a private citizen's right to free speech and an organization's right to free speech? Explain why or why not.
Who or what should determine whether someone has violated laws regulating free speech, such as someone who posts hate speech on Twitter?
How should someone be held responsible for violating laws regulating free speech, such as posting hate speech on Twitter? posting threats of violence? sharing misinformation about Covid online?
Evaluation of Discussion Participation
If written summaries are assigned as part of discussion preparation, use the Synchronous Discussion Rubric or Asynchronous Discussion Rubric to evaluate students' contributions.
Use the Summary Rubric to evaluate summaries assigned separately from discussions.