The aspect of fake news is not a new thing in contemporary society. News reports in various parts of the world are inaccurate, and it is prudent to have the body that helps in distinguishing the same on most occasions. Before the emergence of the latest technology as well as the widespread of the internet, the media played a crucial role in regulating fake news. That is currently an uphill task since various platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are not restricted making it feasible to propagate propaganda. Fake news can significantly destabilize a country since it changes peoples’ perceptions, making it hard to rule and influence on matters that are likely to improve the welfare of the public. Individual freedom of expression is roots in democracy and any attempt to thwart it might not get along with the current population, who are elites. With the rapid growth of social media, it is hard to control fake news, and that makes it more sensational. Even though the government has been at the forefront in implementing laws to prohibit fake stories, the step is less likely to materialize, and the essay presents an argument revolving around the case.
In most cases, individuals will create news based on what they want to appear in the public domain. The government is good at that and that stands as the first justification why prohibiting fake news should not see the order of the day. The government will get the monopoly power to execute some instance, and that brings the aspects of dictatorship. The nature, as well as the validity of news, will be compromised to a greater extent. The implementation of such an instance will make it possible to rely on only the information that favors government processes (McNair 23). The ability to control news is the main reason for the existence of biased news. Ideally, the government is not always right, and critics play a significant role in moderating specific unethical actions within the government such as corruption.
The First Amendment Rights is also a factor to consider. The government will always execute plans that improve its operations and fail to recognize the welfare of other members of society. According to the amendment’s rights, individuals should be free on any occasion and share with others to grow critical aspects. Human beings should relate to others in any given space. As a consequence, the freedom of speech is an instance that will make it possible for a human being to explore their potential and remain relevant in various environments (McNair 24). Nevertheless, the Amendment fails to allow defamatory messages since it doesn’t mean good for the whole society as well.
What is the economic implication of laws prohibiting fake news? The justification for the question can best be approached with a consideration of the amount of income that comes from social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. It is evident that these two platforms propagate fake news to a greater extent (Verstraete et al. 31). Ideally, the world is taking a different turn with most communication currently happening online. The only limitation with such online platforms such as Facebook is the lack of a mechanism to distinguish between fake and genuine news. Before the emergence of social media platforms, media sources such as TV and Radio were careful about the kind of information they were giving out. That is still the case at the moment. Trusting information coming from TVs as well as radio is possible. Before disseminating any knowledge, there is a need for a background check to find out the truth behind it. However, social media users are not keen on doing that and will be fast to post information, mostly for fame and to remain relevant in the industry of blogging. That should not offer an opportunity for the government to implement laws. The best approach should focus on regulatory measures from the owners of social platforms such as Facebook.
Even though human beings are social, there is a need to offer a sense of direction, and that can best apply using laws and regulations. To counter the above arguments, the administration of laws in controlling fake news is a matter worth embracing (Verstraete et al. 34). The only challenge is the administration of the legal sanctions since it violates critical aspects of human rights, such as freedom of speech. The constitution is very clear on how humans should relate, and the existence of freedom of speech forms the epicenter of discussions in most debates. Even though specific laws are useful, some of them tend to serve personal interests making it hard to find a firm ground for their implementation.
In conclusion, there is always a slight truth to every fake news. Even though most of them might fail to hold water on most occasions, an element exists, which can help in getting more information related to a given case. People should also have freedom of speech in whichever space they operate and limiting them thwarts critical elements of democracy. Due to such justifications, it is not within my ideology to support the government in the implementation of laws that prohibit the dissemination of fake news. The best approach should be the implementation of processes that will find the truth in any fake news.
McNair, Brian. Fake news: Falsehood, fabrication and fantasy in journalism. Routledge, 2017.
Verstraete, Mark, Derek E. Bambauer, and Jane R. Bambauer. “Identifying and Countering Fake News.” (2017).