The Subjective Dimension of Fake News

Marzena Barańska

Abstract


The universal access to the Internet contributed to the dissemination and popularization of fake news. Their function is quite broad – they can influence the results of political elections, social attitudes and behavior or stock market quotations, and weaken social trust in particular categories of our existence. In the age of the Internet, thousands of new content with manipulated data is circulated every day, without any reliable research that destabilizes the perception of reality. Disinformation is not a new phenomenon, but it has never been such a powerful weapon. The omnipresence of fake news raises questions about the subject side, i.e. senders, content distributors, sources of responsibility for the published material. The aim of this article is an attempt to systematize the concept of fake news and indicate the entities responsible for broadcasting this type of content in the context of applicable law. For this reason, the following hypothesis was adopted: The indifference of approaches in defining the concept of fake news means that the authors and entities distributing content are not aware of the contradiction of the actions taken with generally applicable law. As a consequence, elements of the concept of fake news were distinguished and the entities disseminating this type of content were characterized. The article organizes the state of knowledge regarding fake news and fills the research gap.


Keywords


fake news; Internet; manipulated data; perception of reality; disinformation; generally applicable law

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Baade B., Fake News and International Law, “European Journal of International Law” 2019, vol. 29(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy071.

Bergman J., Vera Zasulich: A Biography, Stanford 1983.

Boyd D.M., Ellison N.B., Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship, “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication” 2007, vol. 13(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.

Czy żyjemy w rzeczywistości fake newsów?, March 2018, Flash Eurobarometr 464 K.013/18.

Encyklopedia szpiegostwa, transl. K. Wojciechowski, Warszawa 1995.

Helm R.K., Nasu H., Regulatory Responses to ‘Fake News’ and Freedom of Expression: Normative and Empirical Evaluation, “Human Rights Law Review” 2021, vol. 21(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa060.

Jędrzyczkowski J., Prezentacje multimedialne w procesie uczenia się studentów, Toruń 2006.

Kościuk D., Kulikowska-Kulesza J., The Right to Public Information: Selected Interpretation Doubts in the Doctrine and Jurisprudence of Administrative Courts, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2020, vol. 29(1), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2020.29.1.129-143.

Kudła J., Staszak A., Operational Control in the Information Technology System (Postulates de lege ferenda), “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2021, vol. 30(2), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.2.263-284.

Lister M., Dovey J., Grant L., Kelly K., Nowe media. Wprowadzenie, Kraków 2009.

McQuail D., Teoria komunikowania masowego, Warszawa 2007.

Podlecki M., Fake news jako zjawisko (nie tylko) medialne – część I, “Biuletyn Edukacji Medialnej” 2017, no. 2.

Szpunar M., Koncepcja bańki filtrującej a hipernarcyzm nowych mediów, “Zeszyty Prasoznawcze” 2018, vol. 61(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/22996362PZ.18.013.9108.

Zegarow P., Dlaczego wierzymy w dezinformację? Analiza mechanizmów psychologicznych, [in:] Zjawisko dezinformacji w dobie rewolucji cyfrowej. Państwo. Społeczeństwo. Polityka. Biznes, ed. M. Wrzosek, Warszawa 2019.

OTHERS

Barańska M., Zabezpieczenie powództwa w postępowaniu o naruszenie praw niemajątkowych, w tym przez prasę, na gruncie systemów prawnych państw europejskich i pozaeuropejskich. Rerminy, zakres. Ekzpertyza przygotowana dla Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości, Warszawa 2019 (unpublished).

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach, COM/2018/236 final, 26.04.2018.

ONLINE SOURCES

Fake news, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/fake-news [access: 3.12.2020].

Fake news, czyli jak kłamstwo rządzi światem. Raport opracowany przez Agencję Informacyjną Newseria oraz firmę doradczą Public Relations, 2017, https://biznes.newseria.pl/files/raport-fake-news-newseria.pdf [access: 10.02.2021].

Górnisiewicz-Kaczor E., Zasady odpowiedzialności administratora portalu internetowego za bezprawne treści zamieszczane przez użytkowników, 2019, https://codozasady.pl/p/zasady-odpowiedzialnosci-administratora-portalu-internetowego-za-bezprawne-tresci-zamieszczane-przez-uzytkownikow [access: 6.12.2020].

Jack C., Lexicon of Lies: Terms for Problematic Information, August 2017, https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_LexiconofLies.pdf [access: 25.01.2021].

Kubicka-Żach K., Fake newsy w wypowiedziach kandydatów w wyborach są, choć nie zawsze świadome, 2020, www.prawo.pl/samorzad/fake-newsy-w-kampanii-wyborczej-raport-helsinskiej-fundacji-praw,498045.html [access: 17.07.2021].

Lyons T., Hard Questions: What’s Facebook’s Strategy for Stopping False News?, 2018, https://about.fb.com/news/2018/05/hard-questions-false-news [ccess: 26.02.2021].

Prowokacja, https://sjp.pwn.pl/slowniki/prowokacja.html [access: 4.12.2020].

Stachowiak P., Kłamstwo? Nie! Post-prawda, “Przewodnik Katolicki” 2016, vol. 51, www.przewodnik-katolicki.pl/Archiwum/2016/Przewodnik-Katolicki-51-2016/Opinie/Klamstwo-Nie-Post-prawda [access: 17.07.2021].

Wardle C., Fake news. It’s complicated, 2017, https://medium.com/1st-draft/fake-news-its-complicated-d0f773766c79 [access: 10.02.2021].

Zakrzewski P., Muras T., Praw(n)y sierpowy w starciu z fake newsem, 2019, https://demagog.org.pl/analizy_i_raporty/prawny-sierpowy-w-starciu-z-fake-newsem-nasz-raport [access: 25.01.2021].

Zasady społeczności, https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines?lang=pl [access: 26.02.2021].

Zasady Twittera, https://help.twitter.com/pl/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules [access: 26.02.2021].

LEGAL ACTS

Act of 23 April 1964 – Civil Code (consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2020, item 1740).

Act of 20 May 1971 – Code of Petty Offenses (Journal of Laws 2019, item 821).

Act of 26 January 1984 – Press Law (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1914).

Act of 4 February 1994 on copyright and related rights (consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2020, item 288).

Act of 18 November 1996 – Civil Procedure Code (consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2020, items 1575, 1578, 2320; Journal of Laws 2021, item 11).

Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Procedure Code (Journal of Laws 1997, items 30, 413, 568, 1086, 1458, 2320; Journal of Laws 2021, item 155).

Act of 6 June 1997 – Penal Code (cosolidated text, Journal of Laws 2020, items 1444, 1517).

Act of 18 July 2002 on the provision of electronic services (Journal of Laws 2020, item 344).

Act of 10 May 2018 on personal data protection (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1000).

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), proclaimed by the General Assembly, resolution 1386 (XIV), A/RES/14/1386, 20 November 1959.

Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC on the establishment of a procedure for the exchange of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ EU L 217/18, 5.08.1998).

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, within the Internal Market (Directive on e-commerce) (OJ L 178/1, 17.07.2000).

CASE LAW

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Lublin of 18 January 2011, I ACa 544/10, LEX no. 736495.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Łódź of 18 January 2013, I Aca 1032/12, LEX no. 1280426.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 27 February 2015, VI ACa 262/14, LEX no. 1711598.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw from 16 June 2015, VI ACa 1034/14, LEX no. 1754025.

Decision of the Court of Justice of 23 March 2010, case C-236/08-238/08, Google v. LVHM, EU:C:2010:159, item 117.

Decision of the District Court in Słupsk of 18 June 2009, VI Ka 202/09, LEX no. 1713151.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 17 June 2002, IV CKN 925/00.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 20 February 2004, I CK 339/03.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 30 September 2009, II KK 110/09, OSNKW 2010, no. 3, item 27.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 8 July 2011, IV CSK 665/10, OSNC 2012, no. 2, item 27.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 30 September 2016, I CSK 598/15, LEX no. 2151458.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 28 October 2016, I CSK 695/15, OSNC 2017, no. 6, item 73.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 24 November 2017, I CSK 73/17, LEX no. 2443498.

Decision of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 19 December 2008, II SA/Wa 1885/07.

Judgement of the EctHR of 16 June 2015, Delfi AS v. Estonia, application no. 64569/09.

Resolution of the panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 7 December 1993, III CZP 160/93, LEX no. 9168.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.5.53-74
Data publikacji: 2021-12-17 19:44:53
Data złożenia artykułu: 2021-05-31 22:38:20


Statistics

Total abstract view - 202
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Marzena Barańska

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.