How Legal Systems Are Responding to the Rise of “Fake News”

The spread of misinformation is not a modern invention.

Back in the first century BC, Augustus, then known as Octavian, used propaganda and false claims to undermine his rival Mark Antony.

When Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press in 1439, it revolutionised communication, but it did not come with a handbook on editorial ethics. By the late 1890s, the rise of America’s “yellow press” ushered in sensationalist journalism with little regard for accuracy.

Fast‑forward to the 21st century, and the internet has amplified sensationalism on an unprecedented scale.

Unfiltered social media feeds make it increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. Users are exposed to a constant stream of unverified content on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, making them more responsive and more vulnerable to manipulation.

This article examines how several countries have attempted to legislate against misinformation and whether these efforts have succeeded in holding search engines and social media platforms accountable.

Current Legislation

France

In December 2018, France introduced two laws aimed specifically at misinformation during election periods. The legislation imposes:

• Transparency obligations for digital platforms: Platforms must disclose the identity of sponsors and the amounts paid for political content. If content exceeds a certain daily view threshold, platforms must reveal details of their algorithms and appoint a legal representative in France.
• A fast‑track injunction to halt fake news: Courts may order immediate removal of content if it meets three criteria:

Compliance is overseen by the CSA, France’s broadcasting regulator.

Germany

Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) came into force on 1 January 2018.

It targets unlawful content, particularly hate speech, on social media platforms. Companies face fines of up to €50 million if they fail to remove illegal content within 24 hours.

Unlawful content includes violations of nearly two dozen sections of the German Criminal Code, such as:

• public incitement to crime
• violations of intimate privacy
• treasonous forgery
• dissemination of violent imagery
• forming criminal or terrorist organisations

NetzDG is one of the earliest attempts to impose direct liability on platforms for user‑generated content.

Singapore

Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was passed in May 2019.

It allows the government to:

• Fine individuals up to $500,000 and/or impose five‑year prison sentences for spreading misinformation deemed against the public interest.
• Impose fines of up to $1 million and ten‑year prison sentences for using bots or fake accounts to disseminate falsehoods.

POFMA applies not only to public posts but also to private groups, chats and messages. The government has not clarified how it will access private communications, prompting concerns about privacy and censorship.

Critics argue that the law grants the state broad powers to determine what constitutes “fake news”.

Russia

In March 2019, Russia enacted two laws targeting online content considered disrespectful or false.

The legislation requires removal within 24 hours of any material deemed to show “blatant disrespect” for the state or to offend “public morality”.

Penalties include:

• Up to 15 days in jail and fines of around $4,500 for repeated disrespect.
• Fines of up to $15,500 for spreading false information.

Observers view these laws as part of a broader effort to create a “Sovereign Internet”, a system that would give the state extensive control over citizens’ online activity.

Australia

Following public outrage over Facebook’s slow removal of footage from the Christchurch Mosque attacks, Australia introduced legislation to address the malicious use of online media. The law aims to hold social media companies to the same standards as traditional broadcasters.

Key provisions include:

• Three‑year prison sentences or fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover for failing to quickly remove violent material.
• Fines of up to $120,000 for individuals and $840,000 for companies that fail to notify the Australian Federal Police of violent content.

Malaysia

In 2018, Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Najib Razak passed the Anti‑Fake News Act just before dissolving parliament for elections. The law imposed:

• Fines of up to 500,000 ringgit (~$123,000)
• Prison sentences of up to six years

Critics argued the law was politically motivated.

After the election, new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad moved quickly to repeal it, succeeding on 9 October 2019. Ironically, Mahathir himself was investigated under the law before its abolition, highlighting the controversy surrounding its use.

Case History: France vs Twitter

Ahead of the European elections, Twitter removed a French government advert encouraging voter participation, arguing that it violated France’s own misinformation laws.

Twitter had updated its policy to ban targeted political advertising in France, which inadvertently captured the government’s #OuiJeVote campaign.

French officials expressed frustration, and two politicians, Marie‑Pierre Vieu (MEP) and Pierre Ouzoulias (Senator), brought a claim against Twitter. The Paris Civil Court dismissed the case.

Twitter later adjusted its policy to allow adverts promoting electoral participation, stating:

“Following the legislation on information manipulation, we decided to ban any targeted advertising in France… After a lot of exchanges, we have decided to allow ads encouraging electoral participation.”

Takeaways

Legislating against fake news is complex, and potentially dangerous when misused.

In Singapore, Malaysia and Russia, critics argue that laws risk becoming tools of censorship rather than instruments of democratic protection. France and Germany face different challenges: enforcing rapid content removal without over‑blocking legitimate speech.

Social media platforms must be better regulated, and users must be better educated. Countries approach the issue from different angles; Australia focuses on violent content, France on election integrity, but misinformation crosses borders far more easily than laws do.

A cohesive international response may eventually be necessary. Whether the European Union or other bodies can coordinate such an approach remains an open question.