Media organizations have criticized pending anti-disinformation bills as the “wrong response to a real problem,” warning that the proposed measures could expand government control over speech and undermine democratic freedoms.
The criticism came after the House of Representatives approved House Bill No. 9465 on third and final reading in June. The measure seeks to penalize disinformation considered harmful to the public or a threat to national security.
In a united statement initiated by Movement for Media Safety PH, 55 media organizations and several independent journalists said the House bill and its Senate counterpart focus on individual expression instead of the systems that enable disinformation to spread.
“The pending anti-disinformation bills confuse the symptoms with the disease,” the groups said.
“Instead of addressing the political, economic, and technological systems that manufacture and profit from coordinated information manipulation, they place the burden on individual expression and expand government authority over speech,” they added.
The groups warned that the proposed laws could criminalize expression and create legal mechanisms that may be used against journalists, critics and ordinary citizens.
They also said the bills do not sufficiently address the role of online platforms, algorithms, commercial incentives and coordinated influence operations in amplifying disinformation.
“Digital platforms play a significant role in the amplification of disinformation, yet current legislative proposals focus disproportionately on content removal,” they said.
The groups said the country already has laws that provide remedies for libel, fraud, identity theft, election violations, cybercrime and other deceptive acts.
They urged Congress to first assess whether existing laws are being properly enforced and consider strengthening transparency and accountability measures before creating new criminal restrictions on speech.
The groups also warned that broad or vague definitions of prohibited speech could lead to inconsistent interpretation and selective enforcement.
They said this could discourage legitimate journalism and limit public participation, particularly because government agencies are often the subject of investigative reporting and public scrutiny.
“Government is frequently the subject of investigative reporting and public scrutiny. It cannot simultaneously serve as the ultimate authority on the truthfulness of speech concerning its own actions,” they said.
The media organizations said a more effective response to disinformation would include greater government transparency, timely access to public information, independent journalism and broader democratic debate.
