Regulation ‘not only safeguard’ for democracy
A conference at the Law Society has heard that regulation and the law cannot do everything to combat the threats posed by disinformation to democracy.
The comments came in a panel discussion on ‘Electoral law and protecting democracy in in the digital age’ on the first day of a summer school hosted by the Law Society’s Centre for Justice and Law Reform at Blackhall Place.
The event also heard a warning from a leading historian that democracy could not be defended by “myth-making” or a refusal to acknowledge complexity.
‘Interference must be justified’
Professor Jane Suiter (director of DCU’s Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society) said that the US was trying to bring EU regulatory measures into trade negotiations, while there were increasing numbers of lobbyists from technology and AI firms in Brussels.
She told the event that, while there was a need to “hold our nerve” and protect fundamental European values through such regulation, other safeguards were needed, such as education about digital-media literacy and critical thinking.
Alex White SC of the Institute of International and European Affairs told the event that, while he was not against regulation, he was a “sceptic”, adding that interference in any type of media had to be justified.
Even “extreme, weird, nonsensical, outrageous” opinions, he argued, should have the right to be expressed.
Political advertising
Ms Justice Marie Baker (chair of the Electoral Commission) agreed that education was part of the solution, pointing out that regulation could sometimes “swoop in” only after the event or election has taken place.
She said that plans to regulate sponsored or paid-for political advertising, however, were not an attempt to prevent free speech.
“I am free to speak – and you are free to respond to me – but I need to know whether that expression of opinion comes from you or someone else,” she stated.
‘Myth-making’
The conference also received a historical perspective on the defence of democracy from Professor Patrick Geoghegan of Trinity College Dublin, who told attendees that democracy had always been fragile and had always required vigilance.
He called for the embrace of complexity, warning that those seeking to defend democracy could not do so through myth-making, but rather through an “honest reckoning of history”.
“We cannot defend democracy if we romanticise or demonise our leaders, or sanitise or simplify our past,” Prof Geoghegan stated.
Contradiction
Citing the example of recent critical commentary about Daniel O’Connell's personal life, he said that embracing complexity meant accepting that O’Connell could be both ‘The Liberator’ and have a darker side.
He also told the audience that Abraham Lincoln’s greatness as a US president had endured, but it was not an uncomplicated story, as he had suspended habeas corpus and stretched the US constitution to breaking point to win the country’s civil war and end slavery.
“When we remove contradiction from the past, we lose our capacity to understand the present,” the historian added.