Episode 3 - Mis-Dis-Malinformation (MDM) & Terrorism

Hi Listeners,

I plan on doing a series on misinformation, disinformation and malinformation (MDM). In this first episode I am focusing on the Department of Homeland Security’s bulletin regarding MDM’s and terrorism.

Yes, this is a real terrorism bulletin - check it out here

In this podcast I reference an interview that Reuter’s hosted with two experts regarding misinformation:

• Marco Milanovic - Professor of Public International Law at the University of Nottingham

• Marystella Auma Simiyu - Programs Officer at the Center for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria

Stay tuned for more episodes on this topic. If you have any ideas for what I can cover feel free to send me an email or comment on this post.

If you are enjoying this content please feel free to share with anyone you know that should hear this information. We are truly living through historic times where our institutions are trying to steal away our civil liberties. Stay awake and be cautious.

Transcript:

Jon: On February 7th, 2022, the Homeland security department for the United States of America has issued a national terrorism advisory system bulletin. And it reads as follows. The United States remains in a heightened threat environment, fueled by several factors, including an online environment, filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories and other forms of Mis, Dis and Mal information otherwise known as MDM introduced and or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These actors seek to exasperate social friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions and encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.

Casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and or personal grievances pose on an ongoing threat to the nation. Well, the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year.

The convergence of the following factors is increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment. 1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which so discord or undermine public trust in the U S government institutions 2) continuing calls for violence directed at us critical infrastructure, soft targets and mass gatherings.

Faith-based institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques, institutions of higher education, racial and religious minorities, government facilities, and personnel. Including law enforcement and the military, the media and perceived ideological opponents, and 3) calls by foreign terrorist organizations for attacks on the United States based on recent events.

Before I continue, I will define miss dis and Mal information, as it is stated on the Homeland security website, misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing. Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead harm or manipulate a person social group, organization, or country in mal information is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead harm or manipulate.

All three definitions can be incited by foreign or domestic threat actors who use campaigns to cause chaos, confusion. These malign actors are seeking to interfere with and undermine our democratic institutions and national cohesiveness. I find this particularly terrifying because now me or anybody else who speaks up against government policy and against the narrative or the agenda that they're pushing can be considered a terrorist.

That is obviously not the case. There are a lot of people out there that have their own opinions that can see what's going on with the government. And the fact of the matter is we have free speech. That is the point of our free countries, our democratic societies. And unfortunately this statement here is taking those freedoms away.

And if you go back and listen to my episode one, and my episode two, both of those episodes are about a perspective that is outside of the public narrative from either mainstream media or what the government is covering. So now under the statement and fortunately I'm Canadian and not American, but if I was American.

Those two podcasts would be considered mis-dis or Mal information as they are not publicly regarded as being correct and could potentially face prosecution. In the statement, they are shutting down anybody's voice that goes against the government and undermines public trust within the U S government institutions.

The other clause is shutting down any movement that is creating violence. And yes, I denounce violence as well, and nobody should use violence. But if you look at my episode, two talking about the freedom convoy within Canada, you can see that governments and even our prime minister, who we should trust, not to incite violence has continually used violent rhetoric to describe what's going on, even though that hasn't occurred.

So that's very scary that they're putting in violence directed at critical infrastructure. I think that's a direct response to what's happening in Canada right now. And then lastly On the U S based on recent events. So not holding themselves accountable for any of the events that are occurring. So you can't make a stance on anything that has occurred with in the United States.

Whether you agree with it or not, you can not take a stance without being potentially considered a terrorist. So this is obviously a very significant release, by the Homeland security department and something that I think that you're trying to shut down, we'll say civil disobedience, even in a peaceful manner.

And they're trying to shut it down and denounce people from stepping up against the government in the name of terrorism. The scary part about that is. In a time in an era where I believe that there is going to be civil disobedience, it's already occurring in Canada and Americans, especially with convoy are trying to step up and follow suit to what the Canadians did in order to show their displeasure with the government's actions and the mandates that they're enforcing upon the people.

This is just shutting down any type of movement before it can even occur. The important thing to focus on is that they are stripping away, free speech via the MDM clause and what actually makes up Malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation. That's what I'm interested in. And that's going to take more than one podcast episode to cover.

These are terms that are being thrown around by the government, the mainstream media, even by our family, friends and colleagues, this is the equivalent of what fake news was during the Trump era. But yeah, misinformation is definitely the COVID term that people are throwing around to discredit different sources of information that go against the narrative.

So. In this episode, what I want to focus on is who chooses, what makes up this MDM clause, who is in control of deciding what is misinformation, malinformation or disinformation. And how is that actually being used? And I'm going to use a YouTube video that Reuters put on where they had a discussion with.

Two individuals, one, his name is Marco Milanovic. He is the professor of public international law at the university of Nottingham and Mary Stella Auma Simiyui the programs officer at center for humans, right from the university of Pretoria. The main focus here is on how the state defines and controls what this MDM clause.

There is less information about social media, but I can do a full episode about how social media figures out what MDM is and how that leads to censorship on social media platforms. But this interview or this podcast is primarily going to look at the state influence that determines what MDM is and how its enforced.

Here is Marco Milanovic talking about the laws regarding misinformation.

Marco: Some of them are very broad and vague and the broader and vaguer that type of law is the more difficult it is to justify because it generates chilling effects on free speech. Okay. Some laws on the other hand are very specific. So for example, a law that says that it is prohibited to spread false information about cures for COVID is a fairly specific.

Now the question of who decides is the pivotal question. If it is the state regulating this, it will be the state deciding what is true or what is false. And there's a great danger in this because there's always a potential for abuse that the state will actually be suppressing criticism and dissent. In some contexts, we have traditionally been very comfortable with the state deciding on the falsity of some information.

So for example, in the defamation. We are completely straight forward, that it will be an independent court that will decide whether a particular statement was true or false. In, for example, the context of false advertising, we will have some kind of independent regulatory authority that will make decisions on what is true and what is not true.

The biggest danger is when state executive officials, politicians take it upon themselves to decide on truth and falsity. So those types of laws where the executor. Can decide what is true and what is false or the most dangerous.

Jon: So in this example of. We as the public, we are okay. Handing over the responsibility of figuring out what is misinformation or false information within this context.

As long as there's an independent regulatory body, that's looking over it. I E the courts or some type of other agency that is independent and unbiased, it will be able to see both sides of the story, and then verify if something is true or false. Unfortunately, for us. Information spreads so quickly within this modern era, over social media and through mainstream media that runs for 24 hours a day, that it's impossible to have an independent agency look at this from a unbiased perspective.

We have mainstream media as well as politicians commenting on what is misinformation immediately, either on mainstream media, by the news or on their own private Twitter handles or on social media. We do have politicians commenting immediately on what is misinformation.

Marco: It is, it is legitimate for such an independent regulatory body with being vested with the power, to make some decisions on what is true, what is false, what can be said and cannot be said.

The biggest problem is when that type of independent regulatory body is captured by those who have political power. And you have that in many states, in many states, you have sort of quasi independent bodies that are actually controlled by political. Right. So that is the most dangerous type of situation.

Jon: Most agencies that we see that should be independent and unbias are very closely tied to the politicians that hold the office. And even companies that hold lobbying power within these agencies. Most agencies such as the FDA and the CDC have a very limited ability to actually run independently anymore as they are extensions of the government and the government's control. So even if they are originally were supposed to be independent agencies, to look at things in an unbiased way, there are now just mouthpieces for the politicians and the governments, that hold power.

Marco: And sometimes, as I said, the real purpose behind these laws is actually for the state to control the media space.

They're aimed at journalists and as, as a method of controlling them, right? So it's the state that saying, for example, we're doing this to protect public health, but in reality, they're acting with an ulterior purpose, which is to suppress criticism and dissent.

Jon: The real purpose of these laws are to have the public and the mainstream media essentially be censored against saying anything against the government and the government's agenda. And this is super dangerous, especially considering the Homeland security departments release of this terrorism statement, because now anything that is said against the government is going to be considered.

An event in which censorship and dissent or any criticism of the government is going to be dissuaded. And therefore silenced. Now we're going to hear from, Marystell Auma Simiyui. Once again, the program's officer at the center for humans, right of the university of Pretoria in Africa, she's going to be covering the issues about these large.

Broad statements that the government puts out in terms of what classifies the MDM, the misinformation, the false information, and how that impacts both journalists, as well as just the the public on how they interpret what they're allowed to say and how that leads to a self-censorship.

Marystella: Different information, beat false case might lead to different might elicit different reactions from people. And it provides a very broad room for interpretation by enforcement agencies that is susceptible to misuse in Nigeria. Another example is cyber crimes act, um, also criminalize the intentional spread or false information that can.

Cause among other things, danger, anxiety, intimidation, and met needless anxiety. So our concern was around phrases, such as needless anxiety in convenience, because these are actually very vague provisions and it, it, it, it does leave room for broad interpretation by enforcement, by enforcement agencies. And we assessed this also based on the link between the expression and the threats are harm.

They seem to be, yes, there's an expression here that. Or might not be protected, but the link towards whether it can actually cause harm, whether there's an imminence of harm is lacking in a lot of these provisions. And our concern was that these are likelihood, which we have seen materialize in very different and many contexts in Africa that the authorities will disproportionately use these laws to muzzle.

Um, activities through my rights defenders, civil society organizations, and other creatives of establishment, because the way they are phrased needs room as a Sage to broad interpretation. And we also felt that, um, these provisions ended up living, given a lot of responsibility to citizens to verify the accuracy of information, but there there's an obligation to tell the truth that comes out from these statutes.

And, um, the worry also for us was that some of these provisions. To self-censorship because they are not so clearly drafted. They are not precisely drafted as them. The requirements of legality, they are not precisely drafted enough for citizens to know which, which expression is protected, which expression is not protected.

And because of the this act, it can actually lead to self-censorship

Jon: the law is purposely general. What that leads to is the populous either journalists or the general public being. Afraid of that being misinterpreted and misused by the establishment, be it, the authorities in which are going to reprimand the public for speaking out and using their free speech against the government or any of the established powers there and in doing so, what that does is it puts the obligation, like she said, on the public, on the individual to be the one who scrutinizes the data that is there and.

Which that is a lot of responsibility in terms of trying to do your due diligence in terms of, is this truthful information? And that is extremely difficult for an individual to figure out, especially in this era where there, it depends on what you're looking for. You can find information on either end of the spectrum.

So if it's only being promoted by your government or by the establishment, that there's only one narrative or one side of the argument, if you find information on the other side, it's going to be difficult for you to consider it to be truthful or not because. If you misstep, what is going to do is, is going to lead to your own punishment and to your own scrutiny by pedaling, potentially misinformation.

So the real issue is that leads to self-censorship because people are not they're too afraid. There is a fear driven in them to be prosecuted by a very general law. So instead of stepping up and saying something against the establishment, even with factual data, they're going to rather silence themselves in order to avoid. Any type of prosecution by the establishment.

Marystella: We have seen a lot of online bloggers been targeted by, by these, these ads, especially if they are critical of the establishment, especially when we are raising issues around corruption or how government is addressing a particular subject. This is when you see that these laws are misapplied in times of just silence and muzzling certain voices in society.

Jon: So the generality of the rule itself or the law itself regarding MDM, is could be considered there intentionally to create self-censorship so that the populace is fearful of the ridicule that they'll face if they step up and go against the establishment. So even the enforcing of the law has a deterring factor.

That the establishment knows and wants to be in place so that the individual is either frightened from standing up and saying anything in the face of prosecution of MDM, or it is there to protect the state from any type of ridicule. When they are the ones determining if it is MDM or not, whatever the journalist or the individual saying.

Marco: I mean, that is the question, right? How do you regulate this in a way that's compatible with the freedom of expression? So you need to have narrow, specific precise laws, right? So vague laws are incredibly dangerous because they generate self-censorship chilling effects. Okay. Second, you should only rely on criminal laws is very, very accepted.

Criminal law is a very blunt instrument that produces all sorts of bad side effects. And people generally should not go to prison for speaking. Right? So you should only use criminal laws when that false speech causes very concrete, very specific harms, and you have to do so with the rigorous culpability and causality requirements.

What do I mean by that? It is much easier to justify criminally prosecuting somebody who intentionally lied and misled other people. Then a person who negligently or even recklessly spread false information. Right? So the more guilty you are, the easier it is to justify this. And the more harm you do, the easier it is to justify criminal prosecution.

It's one thing to put somebody in prison because they spread false information, but specific cures for COVID as opposed to criticizing the government's response to COVID. We should always be able to criticize the measures that the government has taken in response to the pandemic.

Jon: So what Marco is saying here is that it's the intent, the intent to harm with the information that you are sharing.

And that is where the definitions of the mDM clauses are misinformation, no intent, but it is false disinformation with intent false, but not really creating harm and malinformation, the intent to spread false information with the intent of creating harm. Now, unfortunately in this statement that the Homeland security department.

All of these terms are squished into one, right? So it doesn't matter if you have intent. It doesn't matter if you have harm or not. They're all considered the exact same thing. So how does an individual stand up against the government when it doesn't matter if you have intent or not? If the only thing that they're prosecuting is the actual misinformation or the MDM that's being passed along.

And I find this particularly terrifying because now it doesn't matter what your intent is behind anything. You need to self-censor yourself in order to protect yourself from being prosecuted, from sharing MDM and. Who determines what that MDM is? Well, unfortunately it is the government or the establishment that is there.

That is determining what information makes up the MDM. So you're you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. So it's either silence yourself or face prosecution for speaking up against your government. And that would be the determining factor between what free speeches or not. Marco closes the interview with Reuters in a very important fashion with a very important message

Marco: Above all the state must try not to be evil because remember it is state misinformation that is normally way worse than private misinformation.

Jon: This is obvious the state has unlimited reach when it comes down to their. Ability to reach all of their citizens in both using their own channels, which could be multiple agencies like we're seeing in this terrorism note by the Homeland security department, they're also, especially in the United States and in Canada control a lot of what the mainstream media covers because it's coming directly from the government inherently.

There's a lot of trust within what the government says, but they have this. Gigantic responsibility to make sure that the information that they're giving to the public is truthful. And like I said in the first two episodes that I've covered in this podcast, it is abundantly clear that we're being lied to by our government.

And so this is an extremely scary spot to be in, in terms of our history where well, this is just in America. That you can have your ability to speak out against the government limited, because now it is classified as a terrorist event. If you are spreading MDM, once again, it doesn't matter if you have intent or not to harm.

The sheer fact that you're spreading misinformation is the thing that could have you scrutinized by the authorities and then therefore, potentially prosecuted. Now this is an absolutely new method that is coming out with the Homeland security department. This is new for everybody. Like we are looking at COVID, we're seeing two different narratives starting to come out.

There is the narrative in which there has been, since COVID came out, follow the science vaccines are safe. We've all heard that. And a lot of people believe in it and that's fine. If you believe in the government and you believe in these institutions, that's fine.

I'm not, I'm only here to say that there's another side of this story and it's not misinformation. The fact that there are scientists coming out with studies and are sitting in panels talking about the potential injuries that come from vaccines and the potential harms that come from vaccines. The government is trying to shut down all of that information as misinformation.

And they are censoring people. So now even if you're within the public and you feel as though these might be true facts, you really have to check yourself. You have to censor yourself in order to not open yourself up to potential harm. The hypocrisy of all, this is, there are multiple accounts of the government lying to the public and that's happening consistently day over day right now.

And it is like I said, terrifying. They essentially have carte blanche to go out and say, Anybody who's out there that is not the government and who is not the government lobbied agencies. I E CDC and FDA that anybody who's saying anything against that particular narrative is spreading MDMs. And those MDMs are now classified as a terrorist act.

This is the stripping of our fundamental. Freedom of speech, our fundamental right. Of living within a free and democratic society. And if we don't make a stand right now, we are just setting the precedent that we are okay with our freedoms being taken away. We are okay with just following whatever the government says that we're good followers.

And we don't question anything. It is extremely frightening to me, the situation that we're in and how fast that this is developing. We can see this even with the over politicized portion of what's going on with Joe Rogan right now that the government, the white house is trying to censor conversations with doctors that are using.

Legitimate data to say, and or to bring a different side of the information to the public. But that goes against what the government has been saying. This entire time, there are multiple different examples of the government and of mainstream media, where they've been caught either lying or misleading the public.

And the amount of times that they've actually apologized to the public are zero, where this leaves us is that they are going to double down on those lies. And now they're putting in an enforcement. Against the people and against the media of actually being able to speak freely about the other side of an argument.

And so this is quite literally just censorship of information. There are two things that I hope for out of this one is that any individual does not limit their voice. In the fear of prosecution, of their government, that is the antithesis of freedom of speech. And to that the government and the agencies that work with the government keep themselves accountable to these rules of the MDM, that when they use their voice to plug misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, that they will be held accountable for the harm that they've had on society.

I'm going to finish this episode with two quotes on censorship.

The first one, "the censorship itself, that's not the worst evil. The worst evil is. And that's the product of censorship is the self-censorship because the twist spines that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else. I have to always control myself. I am stopping to be honest. I am becoming a hypocrite and that's what they wanted. They wanted everybody to feel guilty". - Milos Foreman.

And the second quote, "censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime long ago, those who wrote our first amendment chartered a different course.

They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free in the realm of expression. They put their faith. For better or for worse in the enlightened choice of the people free from the interference of the policemen's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand. So it is that the constitution protects course expression as well as refined and vulgarity, no less than elegance".- - Potter Stewart.