Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 9 (2022): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito

Fake News: Definitions, Typologies and the Insufficiency of the Brazilian State’s Responses.

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v9.705
Submitted
January 8, 2022
Published
2022-12-27

Abstract

The production and dissemination of fake news has occupied a central place in current discussions about the degradation or erosion of democratic regimes. The current argument is that we live an unprecedented context in which fake news is produced and spread without controls or filters, contaminating the integrity of electoral processes and political competition. Inserted in this debate, this article seeks to discover and analyze what have been the responses of the Legislative and Judicial Branches have presented to combat the production and dissemination of fake news. To this end, we analyzed the bills proposed in the Legislature between 2017 and 2020 and also the decisions issued by the Superior Electoral Court regarding the 2018 and 2020 elections. Our analysis points out that state responses to fake news tend to be case-by-case, evasive and repressive, devoid of concerns to prevent the problem or adopt systemic solutions. Therefore, we concluded that the legal system is vulnerable to political attacks based on manipulation and distortion of facts, and the problem tends to worsen in upcoming elections.

References

  1. BENNETT, W. Lance. SEGERBERG, Alexandra. KNÜPFER, Curd. The democratic interface:
  2. Technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation. Information, Communication & Society, 21:11, pp. 1655-1680, june 2017.
  3. Projeto de Lei nº 9647, de 28 de fevereiro de 2018. Dispõem sobre alteração na Lei
  4. no 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014, que estabelece princípios, garantias, direitos e deveres para o uso da Internet no Brasil. Câmara dos Deputados, 2018. Available at: <https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=node01lfawet08aw5l14hb1mtzke8qv3521855.node0?codteor=1641813&filename=PL+9647/2018>. Accessed on: April 2021.
  5. Mandado de Segurança Cível n° 0600217-75.2020.6.22.0000. Tribunal Regional
  6. Eleitoral de Rondônia. Available at: <https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/#/public/resultado/0600217-75.2020.6.22.0000>. Accessed on: April 2021
  7. Agravo de Instrumento nº 0603299- 48.2018.6.09.0000. Tribunal Superior
  8. Eleitoral. Available at: <https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/#/public/resultado/0603299-48.2018.6.09.0000>. Accessed on: April 2021
  9. Decisão n° 0601793-86.2018.6.00.0000. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. Available at:
  10. <https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/#/public/resultado/0601793-86.2018.6.00.0000>. Accessed on: April 2021
  11. Representação n° 0601727-09.2018.6.00.0000. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral.
  12. Available at: <https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/#/public/resultado/0601727-09.2018.6.00.0000>. Accessed on: April 2021
  13. Representação n° 0601758-29.2018.6.00.0000. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral.
  14. Available at: <https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/#/public/resultado/0601758-29.2018.6.00.0000>. Accessed on: April 2021
  15. COOK, John. ECKER, Ullrich. LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan. Misinformation and how to
  16. correct it. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, pp. 1–17, 15 May 2015.
  17. DEIBERT, Robert. The Road to Digital Unfreedom: Three Painful Truths About Social
  18. Media. Journal of Democracy, vol 30, no. 1, pp. 25-39, Jan. 2019.
  19. GARGARELLA, Roberto; ROA ROA, Jorge Ernesto. Diálogo democrático y emergência en
  20. América Latina. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper, No. 2020-21, Jun, 2020.
  21. GINSBURG, Tom. HUQ, Azis. How to save a Constitutional Democracy. 2018.
  22. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2018. 350 pages.
  23. GUO, Lei. China’s “Fake News” Problem: Exploring the Spread of Online Rumors in the
  24. Government-Controlled News Media, Digital Journalism, Vol. 8, 2020, pp. 992-1010, 02 jun 2020.
  25. KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow, 2012. London: Penguin Books,
  26. /05/2012, 512 pages, 2012.
  27. KAKUTANI, Michiko. The death of truth, 2018. London: William Collins. August, 2018,
  28. pp. 208, 2018.
  29. KANG, Cecilia. Facebook Whistle-Blower Urges Lawmakers to Regulate the Company. The
  30. New York Times. New York, 2021. Available at:
  31. <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/technology/facebook-whistle-blower-hearing.html>. Accessed on: September 2021.
  32. KANG, Cecilia; FRENKEL, Sheera. An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for
  33. Domination, 2021. New York, Harper Collins. July 13, 2021, pp. 352, 2021.
  34. LaFORGE, Gordon. Sweden Defends its Elections Against Disinformation, Innovations for
  35. Successful Societies Princeton University, New Jersey, 2020.
  36. LEVINE, Timothy. Duped: Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying
  37. and Deception, 2019. Tuscaloosa: Alabama University Press, 2019, pp. 384.
  38. LEVITSKY, Steven. ZIBLATT, Daniel. How democracies die, 2018. New York: Crown,
  39. , pp. 320.
  40. MAFEI, Rafael. Agora, quem tem twitter tem medo. Folha de São Paulo. São Paulo, 2021.
  41. Available at: <https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2021/02/saiba-quais-crimes-daniel-silveira-pode-ter-cometido-e-qual-a-pena-somada-pelo-ataque-ao-supremo.shtml>. Accessed on: September 2021.
  42. McINTYRE, Lee. Post-truth, 2018. Cambridge, MIT Press. 2018, pp. 216.
  43. MOLINA. SUNDAR. LE. LEE. (2021). “Fake News” Is Not Simply False Information: A
  44. Concept Explication and Taxonomy of Online Content. American Behavioral Scientist, vol 65, nº 02, pp. 180-212, 14 oct. 2019.
  45. MUNRO, Geoffrey D. DITTO, Peter H. Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect
  46. in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 23, Nº 06, pp. 636- 653, June 1, 1997.
  47. ORESKES, Naomi. CONWAY, Eric M. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists
  48. obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. 2010. New York and London: Bloomsbury Press. 2010, pp. 355.
  49. PARK, Ju Yeon. When Do Politicians Grandstand? Measuring Message Politics in
  50. Committee Hearings. Washington University in St. Louis Department of Political Science, vol. 83, p. 214-228, jul. 2019.
  51. PRZEWORSKI, Adam. Crises of Democracy. 2019. Cambridge: Cambridge University
  52. Press, 2019, pp. 250.
  53. SCHICK, Nina. Deep Fakes: The Incoming Infocalypse. 2020. New York: Twelve,
  54. , pp. 224.
  55. SUNSTEIN, Cass. How Change Happens. 2019. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2019, pp. 344.
  56. SUSTEIN, Cass. Liars. 2021. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 192.
  57. TANDOC. LIM. LING. Defining “fake news”. Digital Journalism. Vol. 06, nº 02, pp 137-
  58. , 30 Aug. 2017.
  59. THORSON, E. Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political
  60. Communication, vol. 33, nº 03, pp. 460–480, 19 nov. 2015.
  61. WIRZ, D. S. Persuasion through emotion? An experimental test of the emotion-eliciting
  62. nature of populist communication. International Journal of Communication. Vol. 12, 2018, pp. 1114-1138.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.