SOCIAL: PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES/ FREEDOM OF SPEECH ELECTORAL CANDIDATES

SUBJECT:  FREEDOM OF SPEECH ELECTORAL CANDIDATES

PURPOSE:  This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to what can be said about electoral candidates

ISSUE:  There is not enough restriction in speech when in relation to electoral candidates.    

Background:

Elections are always a sensitive subject to handle.  Whether it is a regional or federal election, what should or could be said about electoral candidates can greatly influence the people.  It becomes increasingly important that what is said about these individuals are fact based.  There have been previously smear campaigns which slandered or have caused libel to electoral candidates.  The ability to speak ones mind is also a value that we in North America have as it is a fundamental proponent of democracy.  Democracy can be defined as the ability to gain public office via the popular vote and through elections.  It is important to note that democracy is a primary characteristic of our new world.  It allows people to have freedoms which are truly the envy of many nations.  Promoting democracy is a priority when in relation to elections.  Which is why, what is said about these electoral candidates becomes increasingly important.  What is said has a direct impact on the popularity of a specific candidate.  Therefore, what is said should be factual.  Those that seek to commit slander and or libel should be increasingly punished by the authorities as their lies spread and cause misinformation which directly impact the popularity of a potential candidate which then in turn affects democracy.  It is democratic to have the popular vote and to have it in such a way that it involve an election.  If misinformation about candidates is spread, we could very well see the foundation in which our democratic society is built upon crumble.  

Considerations:

What is referred to as, “fake news,” has received increasing media attention as of recent.  “Fake news,” serves to misinform people in such a way that it affects their decision making.  Through this faltered decision making, we can say that the interest of the people are not truly represented which then affects the popular vote.  Through an understanding that is skewed, these people are miss informed which then causes the misjudgment.  It is important that all the facts are laid out for people to make informed choices.  Informed choices require an understanding of what people ascertain through legitimate sources.  These informed choices aid to assist the community to collectively choose who it is they want in office.  The collective is the important factor here when in relation to our democracy.  Although the individual contributes, what is the primary interest of democracy is the popular vote which means a collective must support the candidate.  Without this collective and the individuals that contribute, we would not have democracy.  Therefore, each vote is important as it is a contribution to the collective which then ascertains the popular votes thus democracy.  Election periods need to have a period of intense scrutiny of information being conveyed to the public as the potential for, “fake news,” can cause mass miss judgment.  Currently, people can say what they want about an electoral candidate however, there are current limitations to freedom of speech in Canada.  Those spreading misinformation can be tried for libel or slander.  This is a step in the right direction but it lacks the validity.  Information about electoral candidates during election periods should be moderated for authenticity and truth.  Misinformation is a problem that goes against democracy because people are unable to make informed choices.  Thus in this digital age, it becomes increasingly important to moderate what is said about electoral candidates during election periods.  

Options:  

Option 1:  Government moderators for fact checking during election periods.

This is the least feasible option as it is highly costly to hire seasonal moderators who can fact check articles and comments that people make.  It also becomes increasingly difficult to monitor people as the conversate amongst themselves in public.  Thus, new legislation may need to be created to accommodate the facts based communication during election periods.  The community would need to be socialized about what it is they can and cannot say about these people running for office.  This would require education seminars in educational institutions and possibly even work environments.  If new legislation is created to solve the issue of misinformation, the Criminal Code would also need to be adjusted to criminalize those who seek to spread, “fake news,” during election periods.  It is very important that we protect democracy.  Preventing the spread of misinformation is the right step to take to promote this.  Having a punishment for spreading misinformation could serve as an incentive for citizens not to partake in the activity of sharing, “fake news,” designed to destroy democracy.  Public support is projected to not be high as a result of a new criminal category.  People will be reluctant to support this option as it removes some of their freedoms.

Option 2:  Digital fact checkers such as artificial intelligence.

This option is the most feasible option as it mainly only involves equipment.  Although some people would need to be hired to maintain such artificial intelligence, they would only program the computer to sift through information which would then fact check each statement.  It becomes increasingly difficult however, to moderate with artificial intelligence, peoples dialect for example in videos.  More advanced or sophisticated technology may not be available.  Thus money should be allocated for research and development for such computer.  The public will be likely to support this option.  

Option 3:  Education about electoral candidates.

This option is very feasible.  Educating people at their schools and workplaces would require man power.  through education seminars, society can get socialized about what it is they can and cannot say about electoral candidates during election periods.  This option can be used as a phase to move up to the previously mentioned options.  Public support for this option is likely high, as it doesn’t remove any freedoms I  which they currently have.  This is however, the most accessible option available as government workers would be in the front line educating citizens.

Option 4:  Status quo.

Maintaining the current way of doing things puts democracy at risk.  Misinformation is already a huge problem in society.  Especially in social media.  It becomes increasingly difficult for people to judge what are facts.  People only have so much time on their hands which is why some are unable to fact check.  Like mentioned earlier, misinformation is counterintuitive to the concept of democracy.  We need people to make informed choices.

Recommendation:

Option three is recommended.