Disinformation has polarised people; purveyors of falsehoods must be made accountable: Justice KV Viswanathan

Supreme Court judge Justice KV Viswanathan on Wednesday said that disinformation is increasingly polarising people in today's digital era and that legal professionals must advocate for a framework that encourages not only responsible discourse but also holds purveyors of falsehoods accountable.."While the right to express ideas freely is a cornerstone of democratic values, disinformation threatens to erode the very foundation upon which those values are built. It is imperative for us as legal professionals to advocate for measures that safeguard the truth without stifling legitimate expression. By fostering a legal framework that promotes media literacy, encourages responsible discourse and holds purveyors of falsehoods accountable, we can uphold the integrity of free speech and the rule of law," the top court judge said..Justice Vishwanathan remarked that people today are no longer able to figure out where the news is actually coming from, or separate fact from fiction. He proceeded to comment on how disinformation polarises people."There is no conversation happening. It is one sided. You are given the information and people get polarised on that basis. People tend to believe it, depending on what they want to do with it. People don't check it. And this information is widely circulated. Opinions are formed actions are taken based on that."He added that there is a larger problem of a trust deficit that would ensue if such disinformation is not curbed. "I foresee a graver problem. Slowly and steadily as we progress when people realise after a few years that the information was false and that it was a false information which was the basis of a decision taken by them ... a trust deficit will set in among all of us, so much so that it is bound to impact our normal conversations ... That is not a happy scenario because you'd proceed on the basis that information is false," he said..Justice Viswanathan was speaking at the inaugural Justice T S Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Oration at the Kerala High Court Auditorium. Besides speaking about disinformation, he also commented on climate change, artificial intelligence and data privacy..While highlighting the adverse effects of disinformation on people and the rule of law, Justice Viswanathan also threw light on the tussle between upholding free speech and curbing fake information.He highlighted that the law in India at present is that a speech cannot be proscribed until it falls within one of those eight reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India or unless it amounts to incitement of violence."The point that I want to make is not that you compromise on free speech, because that will have its own deleterious effect. But alongside guaranteeing free speech, how do you check this malaise which is fast gripping us?" he asked..In this context, he commented on three aspects - the blurring line between censorship and action against harmful content; subjective disinformation and the role of social media."The line between censorship and misinformation can be blurred. While it is crucial to remove harmful content, there is a risk that legitimate discourse and diverse opinion might be suppressed. We must be vigilant against overreach that stifles dissent or controversial viewpoints," Justice Viswanathan said.He also opined that what constitutes disinformation can be subjective as different groups may have conflicting views on what is true and what is false."And even authoritative sources may not always agree, this complexity makes the task even more challenging."On the role of social media, the top court judge said that these platforms are at the forefront of moderating content and face immense pressure to remove harmful information while upholding free speech. Their policies and algorithms can inadvertently promote or suppress certain viewpoints, adding another layer of complexity, he added."The legal and ethical limits of controlling disinformation are constantly evolving, governments and international bodies grapple with setting legal boundaries. While laws against hate speech, incitement to violence and defamation exist, extending these to cover disinformation is controversial, and is difficult to enforce uniformly," he said..While commenting on government interventions against disinformation, Justice Viswanathan said he would not comment on what is happening in India since the Central government's Fact Checking Unit is under challenge before the courts.However, he highlighted the laws in Singapore and Germany. With regard to the enactment against disinformation in Singapore, he said,"They have a mechanism where if information thought to be false, or tantamount to disinformation is a aired, they have an authority - now vested in the government - who have power to direct that medium to publish alongside the false information, the correct information". The underlying principle behind the Singapore law is that the answer to false speech is more speech.Similarly, the answer to hate speech should be harmony speech, Viswanathan advocated."There is a there is a theory that instead of suppressing free speech. You must have more speech. And I always wondered, just as an aside, that apart from handling hate speech by law, why can't it be done by harmony speech. Why cannot good Samaritans (come out with more harmony speech) … The law can take its course - incitement to violence, that should be curbed. But I think if the answer to false speech is more speech, the answer to hate speech, apart from legal sanction, should also be harmony speech," Justice Viswanathan added.On the shortcomings in the Singapore law, he noted that not all may agree with leaving such decisions to the government. "The problem with the Singapore legislation is that it vests the adjudicating power in the governmental machinery. That may not be entirely acceptable. But if there is an independent body, at least it may be a starting point.".On the German model, Justice Viswanathan said they have a system of self regulation and when the same fails, certain sanctions kick in by law. "I think it is more worth pursuing because ... all of us are champions of free speech - we don't want to compromise that," he added.He observed that a hybrid model incorporating the Singapore and German approaches could be a way to tackle disinformation."Somewhere down the line, hybrid model, which assimilates both these models could be thought of," he said..However, he added that merely enacting a law will not be enough to tackle disinformation. Education and digital media literacy is also important."The real solution to disinformation, rather than from the law. comes from the changes that each of us can make to our everyday lives," he observed..He went on to note that while efforts to increase measures to counteract disinformation is likely to increase in the near future, lawyers are going to be uniquely placed right at the forefront of various legal battles. He explained that these battles could be a judicial review of laws restricting free speech, or the legality of content takedown measures, to give a few examples."It is for these battles that we need to equip ourselves with the views and experiences from around the world, which is facing similar troubles and where the laws are mostly in the incubatory phase," Justice Viswanathan said..[Watch video of the event].[Read live coverage of the event]