Turkiye’s New ‘Fake News’ Legislation: Philosophy And The Dangers Of Government-Mandated ‘Truth’

Turkiye's new disinformation law, passed on 13 October, criminalises disseminating untrue information, punishable for up to three years. The legislation, does not describe what exactly would constitute untrue or false information and gives all discretion to courts to decide what is true what is not, not only in the legal but also in the epistemological sense. That runs the risk of turning the courts into 'institutions of truth' in an Orwellian way.

The fake news legislation, would give authorities more ways to silence free expression and 'undesirable information,' which is especially worrying considering the already-weak independence of judiciary in Turkiye. This could have a chilling effect on free speech and critical thought in the country.

To help save freedom of expression, not only politicians and members of the public but also philosophers should join the debate on "truth" and legal certainty in relation to disinformation laws.

What does the law say?

The most problematic piece of the legislation, Article 29 reads as follows: “Any person who publicly disseminates false information about the country's domestic and foreign security, public order and general health, with the sole aim of creating anxiety, fear or panic among the public and in a manner that is liable to disturb public peace, shall be punished by one to three years of imprisonment."

"If the offence is committed by concealing the true identity of the perpetrator or within the framework of an organisation's activities, the punishment mentioned-above is increased by one half.”

Another one of the amendments increases Turkish authorities power to order social media companies to remove or block content. The legislation also builds up on a previous law and require social media companies to have Turkiye representatives who are required to be Turkish citizens and must be resident in the country. Such changes, combined with the newly introduced administrative fines, may see social media companies becoming more vulnerable to undue political, financial and judicial pressure in Turkiye.

Even prior to this law there has been allegations that Facebook have already agreed to silence voices undesirable for Turkish authorities. On Twitter thousands of accounts were blocked from access thanks to the platform's ‘Country Withheld Content’ tool.

What is the political context in Turkiye?

The new legislation in Turkiye has come into effect at a critical political moment, with the country gearing up for presidential and parliamentary elections in 2023. Given the existing political context in which freedom of expression is severely restricted and dissenting voices are routinely targeted by undue judicial pressure, this new legislation serves to further limit political dissent under the guise of fighting against disinformation.

Indeed, many have argued that these amendments are little more than an attempt by the ruling party to consolidate its power before the crucial vote. Regardless of political affiliation, these restrictions on political speech may only serve to further erode the principle of democratic governance in Turkiye.

The economic downturn in the country is one of the main drivers behind voters turning away from the ruling AK Party. With growing concerns about high unemployment, rising inflation, and decreasing wages, many citizens are beginning to sense that something must change if this downward trend is to be reversed. However, given the government's tendency to try to control all aspects of public life, any information that contradicts official announcements or data, including on the state of economy, could easily be labeled as "untrue" and prosecuted under the new laws.

The dangers of government-mandated 'truth'

The dangers of government-mandated 'truth' are manifold. On the one hand, restricting free speech and imposing strict limits on what information may be shared can lead to an increasing sense of fear and paranoia within a society.

When government imposes legal truths on its citizens, it not only strips them of their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and thought, but also poses serious dangers to the public. As such, legal truth can easily be used as a tool for controlling the flow of information in society. In addition, legal truths always carry with them the risk of abuse or authoritarianism, as they have the potential to be used as a political weapon against dissenting voices or groups that are deemed undesirable by the establishment.

People may feel afraid to voice their opinions or share information that contradicts official narratives. Additionally, power tends to corrupt, and government-imposed truths are inherently vulnerable to abuse.

Those with enough influence or wealth may be able to obtain special dispensations in order to share alternative viewpoints, while the average person faces heavy fines or even criminal penalties for sharing 'untrue' facts.

Ultimately, statutory limits on truth can erode trust in both institutions and individuals, as people come to perceive these entities and individuals as untrustworthy. This erosion of trust, would make people increasingly susceptible to disinformation, misinformation and malinformation. As such, it is imperative that we guard against government-mandated 'truth', lest our society fall victim to widespread fear and distrust.

The best way to deal with disinformation and fake news

There is no doubt that the rampant spread of disinformation in our modern world presents a real threat to society. One key approach has emerged as particularly powerful: making it possible for individuals to access diverse information sources.

This approach is rooted in the fact that diverse viewpoints and opinions help to mitigate against the spread of disinformation. When different individuals can access information from a wide range of perspectives, they are better able to critically evaluate what they hear and see, allowing them to spot false claims more easily. Furthermore, when different people are exposed to varying ideas, perspectives, and values, it promotes understanding across social groups and cultures. This greater understanding leads to better communication between conflicting groups, ultimately helping to curb some of the socially divisive impacts that come with widespread disinformation.

Thus it seems clear that encouraging diversity in information access is one of the best ways we can fight against the scourge of disinformation today. By continuing to promote open dialogue, collaboration, and critical thinking among citizens around the globe, we stand a much better chance at truly addressing this pressing issue.

Philosophers should also join the debate on 'truth' to save freedom of expression

When it comes to our laws and legal systems, we often focus on their function as a means of establishing truth. However, the recent passage of a controversial new law in Turkey has forced us to question this role.

While it can be challenging to clearly define formal legal truth versus epistemic truth, the main difference between truth from a legal perspective and epistemological perspective is that the legal perspective is concerned with what is true in terms of the law, while the epistemological perspective is concerned with what is true in terms of knowledge. The Turkish 'disinformation' legislation expect the court to decide what is true in terms of knowledge as well as in legal terms.

When we think of truth in legal contexts, what comes to mind immediately is legal truth - that is, the objective facts or claims that legal systems use to determine issues such as, whether an individual is guilty or innocent or how to fairly settle a commercial dispute.

To prevent innocent people from being wrongfully convicted, courts require conviction evidence to be clear and convincing and not based on weak circumstances.This helps to prevent innocent people from being convicted of crimes they did not commit. They also need to ensure that defendants have a fair chance to defend themselves against the charges against them.

The courts establish truth beyond reasonable doubt by looking at the facts and evidence of each case. They will also consider the credibility of witnesses and the strength of the prosecution's case. These tools would be ill suited to decide on factual accuracy of an opinion and the its likelihood of creating panic, as stipulated in Article 29 of the Turkish disinformation law.

The legal truth is established partially in a self-referential way with wholistic references to law. Formal Legal truth is often seen as objective and absolute - it is defined by norms and conventions that are deemed to be universally true.

The concept of truth is one that is at the heart of our legal system. On the one hand, the courts rely on testimony, evidence, and facts in order to determine what actually occurred in a given situation. At the same time, the courts must take into account biases and assumptions when assessing the truthfulness of these claims. Whether it be through trial by jury or an independent investigation by lawyers and judges, it is always a challenge to establish truth even in the sense of legal truth.

In contrast, when we think of truth in epistemological contexts, there is a focus on conceptual and logical analyses of claims in order to determine their validity and accuracy. Truth is what is real, but reality cannot be experienced without the mediation of our senses, perspective and cognitive abilities.

This debate is intricately connected to the larger epistemological question of what it means to possess accurate information in the first place. According to Plato, truth is a statement that corresponds to reality. His pupil, Aristotle defines it as a statement that is in accordance with the facts. Another towering figure, Immanuel Kant define it as a statement that is in agreement with the correct use of reason. Nietzsche, the great anti-philosopher philosopher, defines truth as a statement that is in agreement with our beliefs and values. All these perspectives reveal different aspects of complexity behind assertions of truth.

In judicial proceedings, there may be cases where legal truths or more subjective 'substantive' judicial truths, cannot fully capture the complexity of a given situation or fail to account for issues such as bias and subjectivity. It might also be the case that the legal truth might not correspond with epistemic truth as the legal system takes into account normative aspects such as national security, public health and public order. Similarly, there is disagreement about how we can even reliably identify false information when things can sometimes be true in an empirical sense but still deemed as "false" according to legal parameters.

In light of the highly polarised current political climate in Turkey that has an effect on the judiciary, any law that does not guarantee legal certainty endangers freedom of expression.

It is more important than ever for philosophers to join the public debate on 'truth' in the context of misinformation, disinformation and fake news. After all, truth cannot be decided simply by referring to legal systems or government approved news outlets and official statistics.