Last week, representatives of several social media companies appeared before Congress to testify about mounting evidence that Russian government sponsored groups sought to influence U.S. elections and American political sentiment by propagating false or misleading news stories, artificially driving online popularity of those stories, and actually fomenting violent demonstrations and clashes. These hearings were only the latest manifestation of mounting concern that Russians are engaged in information “warfare” designed to undermine American — and other Western — institutions and public confidence. As a result, there is momentum behind the idea of legally mandating that social media companies, online platforms, and even conventional media counteract “fake news.”

Russian “information operations” — efforts to use media to sow confusion and discord in other nations — are not new phenomena. During the Cold War, Soviets used various propaganda techniques to subvert Western public sentiment or to discredit those viewed as enemies. To be sure, the media tools currently available for such operations are far more sophisticated than fifty years ago; for example, today’s English language Russian Television — or “RT” — is much slicker than old-time Pravda. But the principle that strategic communications are of geopolitical significance is long-standing. Indeed, in 2013, the chief of the Russian General Staff — Valery Gerasimov — articulated the current doctrine of modern warfare as including non-military means of undermining the stability of opponents by sowing popular discord and confusion.

But as calls to counteract “fake news” increase, it is important not to overreact and undermine our First Amendment values. The First Amendment is not merely designed to protect abstract “truth.” In reality, it was adopted in an age when there was no such thing as an “objective” or “professionalized” media. Early America was an age of rough and tumble, politically activist, and even scurrilous press. In the first decade after the Constitution, press wars between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were routine, and involved allegations of sexual and financial misconduct. In 1798, the Federalists reacted by passing the Sedition Act, which criminalized false statements that criticized the federal government. Among the notable prosecutions for sedition was that of pro-Jefferson pamphleteer James Callendar, who was fined and imprisoned — and later pardoned by Jefferson.

The Sedition Act came under immediate criticism and expired during the Jefferson Administration. The Supreme Court stated in dictum in 1964 that “{a]lthough the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” Thus, the rights of free speech and freedom of the press presume that there will be false political speech, and that the cure is — as Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote — “more speech.” That is why legislative efforts to mandate the suppression of political falsehoods in general would be misguided and very overbroad.

But that is not to say that no steps can or should be taken to counteract foreign information warfare aimed at subverting our democratic institutions. Rules or policies — whether legislated or adopted by private media platforms — could well restrict or deny the ability of automated networks of bots or zombie computers to influence search engines by artificially driving the dissemination of propaganda online. After all, robots do not (yet) have First Amendment rights. Likewise, there should be substantial leeway to require that foreign purchasers of advertisements be identified and to block posts that falsely identify the author or impersonate legitimate users. Finally, direct incitement to violence or illegal activity is not protected speech and can also be barred from media platforms.

Internet-based media is a relatively new phenomenon but the principles of our constitutional democracy are adaptable. While Russian and other foreign information operations are deeply concerning, they are not cause for panic or for overturning our settled free speech values. As Justice Brandeis said, our best weapon is still “more speech” guaranteed by the Constitution.

Michael Chertoff is currently Chairman of the Chertoff Group, which includes technology and social media clients.

Cyberlaw / Internet, First Amendment