by Elouisa Maria Mueller – Winner of the UCLan Cyprus Law Society 2024-25 Writing Competition

Introduction

In an increasingly globalised and digital world, the pervasive spread of misinformation in times of crises presents complex challenges with far-reaching legal and political implications. While discussions often focus on the immediate societal effects – such as the potential impact on public opinion and voter behaviour during elections – the influence on decision-makers in courts and parliaments, and the longer-term consequences for the rule of law and democracy, remain underexplored. As legal and political matters become more complex and involve multiple parties or states, one constant persists: decisions in courts and parliaments are made by human beings, who are equally vulnerable to misinformation.

This essay critically examines these overlooked dangers, shifting the focus from the impact of misinformation on the public to its influence on decision-makers in courts and legislatures. The essay highlights the vulnerabilities that misinformation creates for judicial and legislative integrity.

Legal Implications

Misinformation, defined as false or misleading content shared regardless of whether there is intent to mislead, poses a significant threat to the integrity of judicial processes. Courts, which rely heavily on evidence, face difficulties in distinguishing credible evidence from digitally manipulated content. Advanced technologies such as deepfakes and other forms of digitally altered media, can create false narratives, leading to wrongful judgments and undermining confidence in the ability of the judiciary to deliver justice. One example is the EncroChat cases, where courts assumed the originality and completeness of chats without intensive investigation, leading to criticism and concerns about the authenticity of digital evidence.

Beyond the courtroom, misinformation on social media platforms has a significant impact on public perceptions of judicial decisions. False narratives surrounding court decisions can foster the illusion that certain decisions are legally or morally wrongful, polarising societies and undermining trust in the judiciary. Holding platforms accountable for their role in spreading misinformation about judicial decisions remains an ongoing issue, as Art. 8 of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) makes clear that there are no general monitoring or active fact-finding obligations. Meanwhile, the increasing anonymity of the internet further complicates individual accountability by making it difficult to trace and hold individuals responsible for spreading falsehoods.

Political Implications

During crises, misinformation often exacerbates societal divisions by promoting false narratives, deepening distrust between opposing political factions. This makes consensus-building and decision-making within democratic institutions more difficult. Of even greater concern is the vulnerability of politicians themselves to misinformation, especially as they are tasked with filtering vast amounts of information to make policy decisions. The volume of misinformation increases the likelihood that distorted facts will shape legislative debates, thereby weakening the ability of legislators to act effectively.

When citizens perceive that politicians make unjust decisions despite the cause being misinformation, public trust in democratic institutions erodes. This erosion is exacerbated by deliberate misinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising governments. Misinformation campaigns targeting governments further destabilise political systems. Politicians, who often have to balance the interests of different groups, find it difficult to distinguish between verified facts and false allegations, making them vulnerable to manipulation.

Balancing Regulation and Responsibility

While tackling the spread of misinformation among persons requires a balance between regulation and freedom of expression, judges and politicians are not personally affected by their judgments and decisions, as these belong rather to the state and its institutions – entities which, as a rule, are not capable of holding fundamental rights. Addressing the indirect legal and political consequences of misinformation thus requires a balance between effective regulation and institutional responsibility and duty. Developing regulation to improve the quality of information on which decisions are based and to minimise the exposure of judges and politicians to misinformation is proving to be a much more challenging task. However, it must also be recognized that the evaluation of analogue and digital information is an intrinsic responsibility of judges and politicians.

For the judiciary, traditional methods of authenticating digital evidence are no longer sufficient. New rules must clarify responsibility for verifying the authenticity of digital evidence, particularly in jury-based criminal proceedings. Establishing specialised oversight bodies to authenticate digital content could provide a solution without interfering in judicial decision-making. Courts must also prioritise their duty to investigate thoroughly by using advanced tools to identify manipulation. The ability to assess digital evidence will become increasingly crucial to preserve the evidentiary value of images, audio, and videos in trials.

For legislatures, a greater emphasis should be placed on digital literacy and information filtering mechanisms. Governments should invest in training programmes for politicians and their staff to enable them to identify and counter misinformation effectively. Strengthening independent research bodies that serve as impartial fact-checking entities could further improve legislative processes. Real-time fact-checking tools, integrated into the policy-making process and visible to the public, could promote greater transparency. Additionally, enabling citizens to understand the factual basis behind decisions can mitigate mistrust.

Towards a Resilient Future

While these measures address the indirect consequences of misinformation, they do not address its root causes. Public awareness campaigns that promote critical thinking skills are crucial in reducing the spread of misinformation. Legal enforcement, including the prosecution of individuals who spread misinformation and the implementation of the DSA, remains essential to protect against digital falsehoods.

Conclusion

Misinformation, once considered a threat to public discourse, poses an even deeper threat to the pillars of democracy and justice, as it influences the decision-making processes of courts and parliaments. Tackling digital misinformation demands more than regulatory efforts. On the one hand, it requires a cultural shift towards critical thinking, transparency, and accountability. Citizens need to be equipped with the tools to navigate a digital landscape. On the other hand, parliaments and the judiciary need new procedures and techniques – also enshrined in law – to verify the authenticity of digital evidence to make just decisions. It is only by recognising and confronting these hidden implications of misinformation that it will be possible to protect institutions such as parliaments and courts to ensure that the decisions that shape the future of citizens are based on the truth and not on manipulation.