Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Language is a powerful tool that in many cases may be used to motivate people or spur
them to action over a particular cause. Although language has the ability to start positive
movements, however, it also has the ability to ignite violence and hate. Often times, the media
will use the effects of word choice and language in order to stimulate a particular response from
their audience. An issue thus stems from the medias license to express its opinion by using
strong and biased language as libel and slander laws still allow for freedom of speech, a right that
has been abused by the media.
Every journalist has his or her own idea of who is at fault, resulting in persuasive
language that pulls the reader towards a particular belief. Consider the Ferguson shooting in
2014. Some articles discussed how Officer Wilson was simply doing his duty, accused of a hate
crime because some people wanted to create hatred towards white police officers. Others saw it
as a rising issue of race that had still yet to be resolved in the United States. The problem with
this news, however, is not the various opinions that arise from one event, but the amplification of
the event into stories that are not actually true. Following the Ferguson shooting, for instance,
CNN reported that Michael Browns death resulted from his attempt at robbing a liquor store1.
Later it was confirmed that Brown was involved in a drug deal and was returning to the liquor
store to pick up a bag. The supposed robbery was what caused Wilson to pursue Brown and
eventually shoot him2. Yet other sources confirmed that Brown was nowhere near the liquor
store when he was shot. Additionally, video evidence proves he entered the liquor store 11 hours
before he was shot, indicating the shooting was not a result from the alleged robbery3. Other
sources thus tried to argue that Wilson shot Brown with no instigation. Some media sources
claimed that Brown was a kind man with some mild criminal records but was not doing anything
illegal at the time4. Even with pictures and videos it is unclear whether the Ferguson shooting
was due to a hate crime or an officer simply defending himself. This case presents a problem in
our society though: what should we believe? Because there are few facts that everyone can agree
on, citizens cannot even begin to argue whether or not this instance was an act of racism or not.
Fake news is abundant in social media today. Due to its abundance and influential
language, American citizens have been hindered in communicating effectively with others, as
their basis for argumentation is not mutual. Additionally, fake news has stimulated other
problems in society today such as an increase in hate and even violence. It has also ignited an
internal debate within the court system as to what should be considered fact or opinion to not
oppress journalists from exercising their right to freedom of speech. In order to better resolve the
problems that fake news has created in society, libel and slander laws should be restructured to
be more stringent as to prevent fake news articles from being produced and shared on social
media.
This particular survey did not determine where everyone originally got their information
from; however in an additional survey conducted in January of last year, it was determined that 6
out of 10 Americans get their information from social media17. People do not attempt to search
for actual information or try to understand it themselves, because people initially see posts on
their social media feed. This often leads to people having false or misconstrued information18.
Since fake news is in abundance, it may also be difficult to determine what to trust. Often
credible sources may be difficult to read through and understand, especially when it comes to the
federal budget, which would have helped those in the Kaiser Family survey. Other sources that
try to put that information into simpler terms may add a bias to the information. In addition they
may present it in a manner that has been manipulated which thus causes citizens to be stuck with
misinformation19.
The biggest issue with citizens being misinformed about their countrys politics and
foreign affairs, is that when it comes time to vote on important topics, their decisions are based
off of false information. Consider the last election for instance. The campaigning between Hilary
Clinton and Donald Trump was met with an abundance of fake news stories including Pizzagate.
This may cause citizens to vote differently because they believed Clinton was a rapist or Trump
was a terrorist. The accusations sound almost ridiculous, however, it cannot be denied that many
of the decisions people make are based off of misinformation they see on social media. Would
the election outcome have been different if only factual, unbiased information were posted? This
cannot be determined for certain, however, it is speculated that certain voters would have made
other decisions had they been more informed on certain issues.
Currently there are a multitude of Libel and Slander laws that prevent people and
companies from being openly targeted by journalists, causing their reputation to be hindered.
Additionally, these laws are not meant to be overly restrictive in order allow for people,
especially journalists, to practice freedom of speech20. Currently the laws state that in order to
fall under a libel and slander case, a statement, in most instances, must be published, false,
injurious, and unprivileged21. A statement, could however, be spoken, pictured or even gestured.
The biggest issue courts encounter is determining if a statement is under the protection of the
first amendment. Generally, if a statement is one regarding an action made by a politician or
company which is false as opposed to a general statement made about their character, libel and
slander laws will apply22. Although general statements about character should be protected under
the first amendment, they should only apply to citizens posting on their own social media. This is
to say that websites such as Buzzfeed and Washingtonpost.com should be more restricted
regarding publishing false statements. Libel and slander laws should be revised in such a way
that all websites that are considered published sources, will not be permitted to post false
information or blatantly criticize an individual or company and have it be protected under first
amendment rights.
Statements that are considered fair under libel and slander laws should still apply to
fake news sites. Fair statements are those that are still considered opinion but have reasonable
evidence to support their claim23. Minor errors such as misprinting someones age, which are not
considered to fall under a libel and slander case, should remain that way even with fake news
sites. If these small errors, however, are repeated in multiple instances and appear to be
motivated through malice, the issue should be taken to the court. Currently libel and slander laws
define a statement that is defamatory as one that is conducted with a malicious intent. This term
is ambiguous, however, and leaves the courts once again questioning first amendment rights. To
prevent the issue of the courts deciding, libel and slander laws should define malicious intents as
statement, which use excessively strong and bias language repeatedly. That is to say, claiming a
politician is a rapist without concrete evidence should not be protected under the first
amendment.
Finally, smaller websites that are created based on false information, such as
pizzagate.com, should be taken down. These sites only serve to ignite fear and hatred and should
therefore be removed as to prevent further issues such as that caused by the shooter entering
Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria. In order to prevent future instances like these, consequences for
posting such articles should have more stringent punishments. As of now, most libel and slander
cases are presented in the form of a lawsuit, which is taken to the court. The result of most of
these cases is the offender owing money to the plaintiff as well as a retraction of their statement.
In situations where false statements ignite violence, offenders should serve jail time. It will still
be the courts decision as to the legitimacy of a statement igniting something as severe as a
shooting, however, if the court determines a violent action was definitely stimulated from an
unreasonably false statement, then the offender should face jail charges. Even though this
measure is seemingly after-the-fact, it is preventative in the sense that people will be more
conscientious of what they are posting as to avoid facing criminal charges.
CONCLUSION
Fake news is abundant in society and is hindering citizens from engaging effectively with
each other and with the world around them. Due to the abundance of fake news, multiple issues
have arisen in society, such as an increase in hatred and violence as well as general decrease in
worldly knowledge. Although courts are trying to better distinguish fake news from statements
protected under 1st amendment rights, libel and slander should become more stringent to prevent
discrepancies in the court. Small websites, which typically harbor fake news, should be
prevented from posting obviously biased statements. Additionally, websites that are entirely
created off of false statements should be dismantled. Finally, individuals who publish statements
that ignite violence should face jail time to prevent similar cases.
ENDNOTES
1. Halpern, Jake. "The Man Who Shot Michael Brown." The New Yorker. August 03, 2015.
Accessed April 19, 2017. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop.
2. Posted at 9:14 am on March 13, 2017 by Bob Owens. "This "New Video" Of Mike
Brown Is The Very Definition of "Fake News"." Bearing Arms. March 13, 2017.
Accessed April 19, 2017. https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/03/13/mike-browns-death-
fake-news/.
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Staff, NPR. "What Legal Recourse Do Victims Of Fake News Stories Have?" NPR.
December 07, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2017.
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504723649/what-legal-recourse-do-victims-of-fake-
news-stories-have.
6. Page, Clarence. "Does the First Amendment protect fake news?" Chicagotribune.com.
December 06, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2017.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-pizzagate-fake-news-first-
amendment-perspec-1207-20161206-story.html.
7. Ibid
8. "Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law." Legal Sources . 2017. Accessed
April 19, 2017. https://www.hg.org/defamation.html.
9. Ibid
10. Goldman, Cecilia Kang and Adam. "In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought
Real Guns." The New York Times. December 05, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-
fake-news-consequences.html.
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Ibid
14. "Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law." Legal Sources . 2017. Accessed
April 19, 2017. https://www.hg.org/defamation.html.
15. 07, 2013 Nov. "2013 Survey of Americans on the U.S. Role in Global Health." The
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 03, 2014. Accessed April 19, 2017.
http://kff.org/global-health-policy/poll-finding/2013-survey-of-americans-on-the-u-s-
role-in-global-health/.
16. Ibid
17. Lichterman, Joseph. "Nearly half of U.S. adults get news on Facebook, Pew says."
Nieman Lab. May 26, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2017.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/05/pew-report-44-percent-of-u-s-adults-get-news-on-
facebook/.
18. Ibid
19. Hunter, Derek. "Derek Hunter - The Real Problem With Fake News." Townhall. January
08, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2017.
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/01/08/the-real-problem-with-fake-
news-n2268346.
20. Doskow, Attorney Emily. "Defamation Law Made Simple." Www.nolo.com. 2017.
Accessed April 19, 2017. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-
made-simple-29718.html.
21. Ibid
22. Ibid
23. "Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law." Legal Sources . 2017. Accessed
April 19, 2017. https://www.hg.org/defamation.html.
*info graphics were taken from websites corresponding to citations 15 and 19.