Journal Of Free Speech Law Hostile State Disinformation In The

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 5, 2025, 9:49 PM

journal of free speech law hostile state disinformation in the

A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium. State-sponsored disinformation (SSD) aimed at other nations' populations is a tactic that has been used for millennia. But SSD powered by internet social media is a far more powerful tool than the U.S. government had, until recently, assumed. Such disinformation can erode trust in government, set societal groups—sometimes violently—against each other, prevent national unity, amplify deep political and social divisions, and lead people to take disruptive action in the real world. In part because of a realization of the power of SSD, legislators, government officials, corporate officials, media figures, and academics have begun debating what measures might be appropriate to reduce the destructive effects of...

Most of the proposed solutions have technical or practical difficulties, but more important, they may erode the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression. Foreign powers, however, do not have First Amendment rights. Therefore, in keeping with the Constitution, the U.S. government can act to counter SSD if it can establish clearly that the information is being disseminated by a state actor. If the government can act constitutionally against SSD, can it do so effectively? Or are new legal authorities required?

The federal government already has numerous legal tools to restrict activity in the United States by hostile nations. Some of those tools have recently been used to address hostile powers' malign "influence operations," including internet-powered disinformation. Nonetheless, SSD from several nations continues. Russia in particular runs a sophisticated campaign aimed at America's fissures that has the potential to greatly amplify divisions in this country, negatively affect public policy, and perhaps stimulate violence. Russia has created or amplified disinformation targeting U.S. audiences on such issues as the character of U.S.

presidential candidates, the efficacy of vaccines, Martin Luther King Jr., the legitimacy of international peace accords, and many other topics that vary from believable to the outlandish. While the topics and the social media messages may seem absurd to many Americans, they do gain traction with some—perhaps enough to make a difference. There is every reason to believe that Russian SSD had a significant influence on, for example, the United Kingdom's referendum on Brexit and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But acting to block such SSD does risk spilling over into actions limiting citizens' constitutional rights. The Journal's Public Conversations Series (video)

We accept submissions year-round. We only accept exclusive submissions, but we’ll give you a decision within two weeks. We can publish an article within weeks, if you prefer. Subscribe to us by following us on Twitter (@JournalSpeech), using our RSS feed, or or by email at journalspeech.substack.com State-sponsored disinformation (SSD) aimed at other nations' populations is a tactic that has been used for millennia. But SSD powered by internet social media is a far more powerful tool than the U.S.

government had, until recently, assumed. Such disinformation can erode trust in government, set societal groups—sometimes violently—against each other, prevent national unity, amplify deep political and social divisions, and lead people to take disruptive action in the real world. In part because of a realization of the power of SSD, legislators, government officials, corporate officials, media figures, and academics have begun debating what measures might be appropriate to reduce the destructive effects of... Most of the proposed solutions have technical or practical difficulties, but more important, they may erode the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression. Foreign powers, however, do not have First Amendment rights. Therefore, in keeping with the Constitution, the U.S.

government can act to counter SSD if it can establish clearly that the information is being disseminated by a state actor. If the government can act constitutionally against SSD, can it do so effectively? Or are new legal authorities required? The federal government already has numerous legal tools to restrict activity in the United States by hostile nations. Some of those tools have recently been used to address hostile powers' malign "influence operations," including internet-powered disinformation. Nonetheless, SSD from several nations continues.

Russia in particular runs a sophisticated campaign aimed at America's fissures that has the potential to greatly amplify divisions in this country, negatively affect public policy, and perhaps stimulate violence. Russia has created or amplified disinformation targeting U.S. audiences on such issues as the character of U.S. presidential candidates, the efficacy of vaccines, Martin Luther King Jr., the legitimacy of international peace accords, and many other topics that vary from believable to the outlandish. While the topics and the social media messages may seem absurd to many Americans, they do gain traction with some—perhaps enough to make a difference. There is every reason to believe that Russian SSD had a significant influence on, for example, the United Kingdom's referendum on Brexit and the 2016 U.S.

presidential election. But acting to block such SSD does risk spilling over into actions limiting citizens' constitutional rights. The effectiveness of internet-powered, hostile foreign government disinformation, used as part of "influence operations" or "hybrid war," stems in part from the facts that the foreign role is usually well hidden, the damage done... Historically, allegations of "foreign ties" have been used to justify suppression of Americans dissenting from wars and other government international activities. Thus, government sanctions against SSD, such as regulation of the content of social media, should be carefully monitored for abuse and should be directed at the state sponsor, not the witting or unwitting citizen. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source.

These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. Information and communication technologies hold immense potential to enhance our lives and societal well-being. However, digital spaces have also emerged as a fertile ground for fake news campaigns and hate speech, aggravating polarization and posing a threat to societal harmony. Despite the fact that this dark side is acknowledged in the literature, the complexity of polarization as a phenomenon coupled with the socio-technical nature of fake news necessitates a novel approach to unravel its... In light of this sophistication, the current study employs complexity theory and a configurational approach to investigate the impact of diverse disinformation campaigns and hate speech in polarizing societies across 177 countries through a... The results demonstrate the definitive role of disinformation and hate speech in polarizing societies.

The findings also offer a balanced perspective on internet censorship and social media monitoring as necessary evils to combat the disinformation menace and control polarization, but suggest that such efforts may lend support to... Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Keywords: Polarization, Disinformation, Fake news, Hate speech, Internet censorship, Social media monitoring Information and communication technologies (ICT) hold immense potential for people and societal advancement in a multitude of avenues (Bentley et al., 2019; Parthasarathy & Ramamritham, 2009; Saha et al., 2022). However, on the flipside, ICTs also constitute a threat to society (Ahmed et al., 2022), and digital spaces have been accused of providing a fertile ground for fake news campaigns and online hate speech... Polarization is a social phenomenon characterized by the fragmentation of society into antagonistic factions with vehemently opposed values and identities that impede cooperation and the pursuit of a common good (Stewart et al., 2020).

The threat is significant, and democracies globally are under siege and reeling from the impact of polarized societies. According to the latest World Economic Forum study on global risks, societal polarization is not just one of the world’s top 10 present concerns, but also a long-term threat over the next decade (Zahidi,... The phenomenon has impeded pandemic response in countries (Stuenkel, 2021), slowed consensus on critical global issues such as climate change (Sparkman et al., 2022), and continues to challenge the resilience of societies, resulting in... Not only does polarization increase the likelihood of violence in societies (Piazza, 2022), but violent demonstrations may exacerbate polarization and divide individuals along partisan lines (De Salle, 2020). These devastating effects of polarization have catapulted it to a top priority for scholars across disciplines seeking an understanding of the causes of this social evil (Stewart et al., 2020). Information technology and social media, in particular, play a crucial role in fostering polarization (Arora et al., 2022; Qureshi et al., 2022), with a spillover effect on offline violence and protests (Gallacher et al.,...

These platforms are not merely spaces of public discourse, but also raise concerns over free speech, particularly when they contribute to the online amplification of the most radical and polarizing content (Riemer & Peter,... Debates on free speech on platforms predominantly revolve around disinformation and hate speech (Riemer & Peter, 2021), both of which are considered to exacerbate polarization (Meneguelli & Ferré-Pavia, 2021; WEF, 2023). While governments and platforms pursue content moderation and censorship to combat this menace of fake news and hate speech (Riemer & Peter, 2021; Vese, 2022), such practices are regarded as a threat to free... Last updated 1 week ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change. For centuries, the guiding philosophy for free speech has been the “marketplace of ideas” – a belief that in a free and open competition of thought, truth will ultimately prevail over falsehood.

So what happens when that marketplace is no longer a level playing field? The digital age, with its social media platforms and powerful algorithms, has created an information ecosystem fundamentally different from anything the nation’s founders could have imagined. This new environment, driven by engagement rather than accuracy, has proven to be an astonishingly efficient engine for the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. This collision between America’s foundational legal principles of free speech and the unprecedented challenge of digital falsehoods raises critical questions. What does the First Amendment truly protect? What are the tangible harms caused by misinformation?

Journal Of Free Speech Law Hostile State Disinformation In The

People Also Search

A New Article From The Daedalus (Journal Of The American

Most Of The Proposed Solutions Have Technical Or Practical Difficulties,

The Federal Government Already Has Numerous Legal Tools To Restrict

Presidential Candidates, The Efficacy Of Vaccines, Martin Luther King Jr.,

We Accept Submissions Year-round. We Only Accept Exclusive Submissions, But