By Brian Glaser
law briefs
Modern governments have a legal obligation to make sure that our principal streams of information are not tainted by propaganda, argues Suffolk Law Professor Sara Dillon in her recent article, “The Propaganda Conundrum: How to Control This Scourge on Democracy,” Oregon Review of International Law, Volume 23 (2022).
Dillon calls for regulation of broadcast content through “an enforceable requirement of factual truth,” new legal obligations placed on social media companies, and a disqualification of elected officials for repeatedly telling certain types of demonstrable lies.
“In Europe, Canada, and New Zealand, there is far greater recognition that guaranteeing the quality of information is a task of government, and that without some regulation, the public may be left at the mercy of malign forces, using free speech not as a means of communication but as a weapon of political warfare,” she writes.
The search for a workable regulatory regime for propaganda starts with defining propaganda more carefully, she says. “How is propaganda distinguishable from impassioned persuasion?” she asks. “If there are two speeches, one by a propagandist and the other by an emotional advocate for some cause or point of view, can we meaningfully distinguish them? If we cannot say with certainty what propaganda is, then neither can we call for its regulation.”
Table of Contents Image created with Adobe Firefly
Return to Table of Contents
Photo courtesy of Sara Dillon
winter 2024
