Potential responses to the threat of ‘fake news’ in a digitalised media environment Jack Edmond A dissertation in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand October 2018 1 Acknowledgements To my supervisor Professor Paul Roth, thank you for your help and patience throughout the year. To Professor Colin Gavaghan for your insight and feedback. To my flatmates for their friendship and support, particularly Raffie, Jonny and Zac for putting up with diss chat all year. Finally, I would like to say thank you to my parents, I wouldn’t be where I am today without your love and support. 2 Table of Contents Part 1: ............................................................................................................................ 5 I. Introduction: ................................................................................................................... 5 II. A background to ‘fake news’ ............................................................................................ 7 A. A history of fake news ............................................................................................................7 B. The current digital climate .....................................................................................................8 C. The threat ‘fake news’ poses to democracy ....................................................................... 10 D. Does ‘fake news’ actually pose a threat to democracy?..................................................... 11 E. An overview ......................................................................................................................... 12 III. Defining ‘fake news’ ....................................................................................................... 13 A. The need to define ‘fake news’ ........................................................................................... 13 B. The proposed definition ...................................................................................................... 13 C. The proposed definition explained ..................................................................................... 14 D. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 15 Part 2 .............................................................................................................................16 I. Legislative action in other jurisdictions ........................................................................... 16 A. France’s law against ‘fake news’ ......................................................................................... 16 B. Criticism of the law .............................................................................................................. 17 C. Applicability to New Zealand............................................................................................... 18 D. Germany’s law against ‘fake news’ ..................................................................................... 19 E. The Network Enforcement Act ............................................................................................ 19 F. Criticism of the law .............................................................................................................. 19 G. Applicability to New Zealand............................................................................................... 20 II. New legislation based on the Harmful Digital Communications Act ................................. 21 A. Arguments in favour of using the HDCA as a framework for alternative legislation .......... 21 B. Necessary departures from the Act .................................................................................... 22 C. A regulatory body to deal with complaints ......................................................................... 22 D. The penalty .......................................................................................................................... 23 E. The requirement of harm .................................................................................................... 23 F. The civil remedies ................................................................................................................ 24 G. Arguments against using the HDCA as a framework for legislative change: ...................... 24 H. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 25 III. Reform to Electoral law .................................................................................................. 26 A. Electoral law in New Zealand .............................................................................................. 26 B. Principles of electoral law ................................................................................................... 26 C. Potential for reform ............................................................................................................ 27 D. Arguments in favour of reform ........................................................................................... 28 E. Arguments against reform .................................................................................................. 29 F. Winston Peters v Electoral Commission ............................................................................. 29 G. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 30 IV. Advertising regulation ................................................................................................ 31 A. The current regulatory framework ..................................................................................... 31 B. The United Kingdom’s response ......................................................................................... 31 C. A three-pronged test to identify ‘fake news’ ...................................................................... 32 D. Voluntary action from digital platforms.............................................................................. 33 E. The Digital Trading Standards Group .................................................................................. 33 3 F. The positive role advertising plays in society ...................................................................... 34 G. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 34 V. Data Protection.............................................................................................................. 35 A. The GDPR ............................................................................................................................. 35 B. Argument for similar regulation in New Zealand ................................................................ 36 C. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 37 VI. Non-legal responses to ‘fake news’............................................................................. 38 A. Education ............................................................................................................................. 38 B. A voluntary response from digital platforms ...................................................................... 38 C. Fact-checking websites ....................................................................................................... 39 D. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 40 VII. Conclusion: ................................................................................................................ 41 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................42 4 Part 1: I. Introduction: The Oxford Dictionary word of the year for 2016 was “post-truth”, which was fitting in a year where ‘fake news’ stories were ubiquitous.1 For example, a Buzzfeed report observed that false election-related stories were viewed more on Facebook than election stories generated by generally trusted media such as the New York Times.2 The emergence of the internet has effectively removed all barriers to enter the media market, creating what can be described as the “new media”. The “new media” has had significant societal consequences, both positive and negative. In theory, the increase in media plurality that has accompanied the ‘new media’ should strengthen democracy, as people can vote with the knowledge required to make informed decisions. However, alongside facilitating the democratic process, the media has the potential to subvert it through unfair, selective, misleading, or completely false reporting.3 Inherent within the media is the power to undermine the democratic process, and cause serious reputational, emotional, and financial harm.4 The ‘new media’ has seen consumers transition from receiving their news through traditional means such as newspapers and broadcasting to social media, as suggested by one poll indicating that 62 per cent of United States adults receive their news from social media.5 Following the United States Election, ‘fake news’ has become a commonly