DEEP FAKE JOURNALISM: PROTECTING PRESS FREEDOM AND ADVANCING SDG 16 BY - ARYAN TYAGI & SHIBU PUTHALATH
DEEP FAKE JOURNALISM: PROTECTING
PRESS FREEDOM AND ADVANCING SDG 16
AUTHORED BY
- ARYAN TYAGI & SHIBU PUTHALATH
Abstract
Social
media has offered users a platform where they are free to share their views and
opinions. The accessibility of these platforms has revolutionised the way of
sharing information, which has given rise to deceptive content and augmented
fake news. This fake news or disinformation is posing a threat to the media and
journalism industries as it has become an issue for the public to investigate
the legitimacy and authenticity of news posted on social media, which leads to
Fake Journalism. Deep fake journalism poses ethical issues that imperil media
objectivity, public trust, and social well-being. It is an Artificial
intelligence-generated synthetic medium that is used to create hyper-realistic
fake content that often misleads or manipulates the public to spoil the
integrity of the media and continues to become a threat to the sovereignty and
security of the state. In line with SDG 16's goals, freedom of the press, a
fundamental human right, is essential for fostering accountability,
transparency, and informed citizenship. This paper will explore the ethical and
legal challenges faced by the journalism industry due to the presence of deep
fakes and analyse them in the context of freedom of the press. It dives into
the consequences of deep fake journalism and its implications for achieving
SDG-16, which seeks to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions. The
regulatory framework and deepfake threats will examine a comparative analysis
with other nations to tackle the complications in forming responsible
journalism and media integrity. The paper concludes by offering suggestions to
curtail the challenges that arise from deep fake journalism.
Key Words: Deep
fake Journalism, ethical challenges, SDG-16, responsible journalism, media integrity.
1. INTRODUCTION
The
rise of deep fake technology poses serious challenges to media integrity, press
freedom, and the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG-16), which
aims to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions. The deficiency in
quality control standards on social media and online platforms has facilitated
the spread of fake news and scams that appear genuine. It has also become
easier to manipulate audio and video in ways that surpass traditional
journalistic editing, further blurring the line between authentic and fake news
(Ireton & Posetti, 2018; Vasist & Krishnan, 2022).
Deep
fake technologies are rapidly advancing, with instances increasing by around
nine hundred percent per year since 2019, raising concerns about their
potential misuse (Vasist & Krishnan, 2022). Despite the importance of
freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), deep fake
journalism poses a threat to the fundamental rights of individuals, including
the freedom of the press, which is essential for a functioning democracy
(Govindu, 2011).
The
media plays a crucial role in maintaining accountability in a democratic
society, often referred to as the 'Fourth Pillar.' It promotes peace, justice,
and strong institutions, as highlighted in SDG-16, by providing access to
information and protecting human rights (OECD, 2014; UN, 2016; Norris, 2006).
However, the increasing sophistication of deep fake technology challenges the
media's ability to fulfill its ethical and moral mission of conveying truth
(Chesney & Citron, 2019).
The
proliferation of deep fake technology not only affects the credibility of news
sources but also raises concerns about the spread of disinformation and its
impact on society. This technology blurs the line between genuine news and
propaganda, making it challenging for citizens to discern the truth (Kelly, 2017).
As deep fakes become more prevalent, there is a risk of decreasing trust in
news sources, particularly on social media platforms (Vaccari, 2020).
Moreover,
deep fakes pose a threat to journalists' safety and security, as disinformation
campaigns can lead to threats and violence against them (Ireton & Posetti,
2018). This challenges the core principles of press freedom and freedom of
expression, which are essential for a democratic society (Barber, 2023).
Therefore,
the spread of deep fake technology presents significant challenges to press
freedom and the achievement of SDG-16. Governments and regulatory bodies must
introduce strict measures to counter the negative effects of deep fakes and
safeguard the integrity of journalism. Efforts to address these challenges must
focus on promoting transparency, accountability, and inclusive institutions in
order to uphold the principles of a free and democratic society.
2. Methods and material
The qualitative research method was applied. The data in this doctrinal
research was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Doctrinal legal
research focuses on a comprehensive investigation of legal concepts, values,
principles, and existing literature, statutes, and case law. The study was
conducted on legal propositions by examining current legal provisions,
including the constitution and statutes, and also decided cases through the
application of analytical thinking (Myneni, 2006, 32). It is an analysis of
authoritative sources and a check on what is already known about legal issues.
Doctrinal legal study tries to find out what the law is about particular issues
and uses an analytical method. It requires a careful, systematic analysis and
evaluation of legal problems and how they relate to each other. The data was
evaluated, and the results were compiled based on this approach. The
fundamental components of doctrinal legal research encompass statutory
resources, reports on cases, text and reference books, law journals, magazines,
parliamentary debates, and government reports.
3. Results
3.1. Deep Fake Journalism and Media Integrity
The Oxford English Dictionary defines deepfakes as “Any of various
media, esp. a video, that has been
digitally manipulated to replace one person's likeness convincingly with that
of another, often used maliciously to show someone doing something that he or
she did not do” (Oxford University Press, 2023). Deepfake is not only restricted
to manipulated videos and images; it also includes audio and texts that can be
used to deceive people. Moreover, there is also an evolving technology called
cheapfakes. Unlike their more intricate counterparts, cheap fakes are generated
using simplified digital techniques, often involving the manipulation of audio
speed and video playback rate. This deliberate alteration can drastically
transform the intended meaning of the video content (U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, n.d.).
The journalism industry
claims that deepfakes are an indicator of a forthcoming “Information
Apocalypse” and are on the verge of undermining the inherent credibility of
videos by blurring the line between videos used as evidence and those conveying
artistic expression (Paris & Donovan, 2019). News media organisations
should invest in fact-checking initiatives because they have to check the
credibility of the media, thereby limiting the source of deepfake (Diakopoulos
& Johnson, 2019, 16).
3.2 National Security
In the year 2018, Congress of the United
States sent a letter to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
raising an alarm regarding the hyper-realistic digital forgeries that are
called ‘Deepfakes’ which can be a threat to national security and can advocate
misinformation in the United States (Schiff, 2018). This was just the beginning
of Artificial Intelligence generated videos, photos, and audio, as it has taken
a massive upturn in recent years. While experts have estimated that 90% of the
media online may be synthetically generated by 2026 (Europol, 2022), Synthetic
media is basically Artificial intelligence-generated media that is mostly used
for gaming, but in recent times it has also given rise to deefakes, and hence
there is a need for regulating artificial intelligence generated media.
During the Ukraine-Russia War, a deepfake video emerged depicting
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
allegedly instructing his troops to surrender to the advancing Russian Army,
and this video quickly gained widespread attention (NPR, 2022). Hackers were
responsible for propagating this manipulated video, which was prominently
featured on the Ukrainian news website Ukrayina 24. The emergence of such
fabricated content poses a substantial threat to national integrity and
security, potentially inciting hostility between nations.
The
escalation between two nations can happen as quickly as light, made worse by
the spread of false information and fabricated news. Deepfake Journalists and
nefarious actors exploit deepfake technologies to manipulate public opinion,
exemplifying one of the most concerning manifestations of the deepfake
conundrum. These instances of misinformation erode media integrity and
undermine public trust in journalism.
In
the aforementioned scenario, during the period of increased tensions between
India and Pakistan in 2019, Reuters identified a total of 30 fabricated and
deceptive videos, strategically disseminated to manipulate public sentiment
(Phartiyal, 2019). This underscores the potential of deepfake journalism to
exacerbate geopolitical conflicts and incite violence, serving as a potent
catalyst, while people can also be influenced by these types of content very
easily.
3.3. Political Campaigns
The
viral dissemination of a deep fake video featuring Former U.S. President Barack
Obama on April 17, 2018, wherein fabricated statements were articulated in his
voice, exemplifies how such manipulative content can be wielded to advance
specific political motives (Meskys et al., 2020, 28). The intent behind this
particular instance was to exploit the technology for propagating a political
agenda, targeting a prominent democratic figure to influence electoral
campaigns. In this context, a study in 2020 revealed that approximately 15% of
viewers believed that the video of Barack Obama was real (Vaccari, C. 2020, 7).
There
is no exact number of voters that can be misled through deepfakes, it is
crucial to recognise that even a relatively minor number of influenced votes
could wield a substantial impact on electoral outcomes (Ray, 2021, 988). The
proliferation of deepfake Journalism presents a grave and imminent peril to
electoral security, as it holds the potential to exert undue influence over
voter preferences, thereby eroding trust in the nation's democratic processes
and the integrity of its media. Through the strategic targeting of opposing
political parties, Deepfake Journalists can exploit this technology to
disseminate fabricated information, thereby skewing the entire electoral
landscape in favour of a singular political faction.
4. Discussion
4.1 Deep fake journalism's Impact on justice
systems and the Rule of Law
The
influence of deep fake-generated news media extends to its adverse use as
fabricated evidence within courtrooms. Research has unveiled the substantial
implications of deepfakes on the foundation of the rule of law, identifying
specific scenarios in which these sophisticated manipulations could disrupt
proceedings within court halls (Sloot & Wagensveld, 2022, 6).
The
surge in deepfake technology presents intricate challenges within legal
proceedings. Involved parties can prolong cases by consistently disputing the
authenticity of the evidence, potentially leading to prolonged litigation. The
widespread use of deepfakes increases the risk that courts might mistakenly
accept manipulated evidence as genuine. Even post-conviction, individuals
maintain the option to publicly proclaim their innocence, alleging that their
guilty verdict was based on falsified evidence. This issue becomes especially
pronounced in cases related to specific offenses, where the mere implication of
legal action can significantly impact an individual's personal life and career
trajectory.
The
proliferation of deepfakes poses a significant risk of undermining the essential
trust required for the efficient operation of a democratic system. The
judiciary, an integral component of democracy, stands as a crucial entity. If
juries no longer have faith in their ability to distinguish truth or harbor
suspicions of counterfeit evidence within legal proceedings, the courts would
forfeit the vital public confidence on which their legitimacy relies.
(Pfefferkorn, 2020, 271).
4.2. Preserving freedom of
press while countering Deep fake threats
The
Indian Constitution protects the freedoms of "speech and expression,"
including press freedom, for all Indian citizens. These liberties are necessary
not only for promoting certain fundamental citizen rights but also for
maintaining certain democratic values. Art. 19 protects some of a person's
fundamental, valuable, and natural rights (M.P. Jain, 2018, 1124). The liberty
protected by Art. 19(1) is not absolute. The exercise of each of these rights
is subject to being controlled, restricted, and regulated to a certain degree
by statutes enacted. Thus, clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 outline the
circumstances and grounds for which a legislature might impose "reasonable
restrictions" on Article 19(1)(a) to (g) (M. P. Jain, 2018, 1124). A
legislature cannot limit these liberties beyond what is required by Articles
19(2) to 19(6) and even the legislature's proposed restrictions are open to
judicial review.
The
preservation of freedom of speech is vital for the effective operation of the
democratic system. It is generally viewed as the primary requirement for
liberty (Mathew, K.K., 1954, 34-35). The Supreme Court has interpreted 'freedom
of speech and expression' very broadly as a "fundamental human
right", and "natural right". Countries with a free press appear
to have better rule of law, and regulations, and more stable and effective
governments (Media and SDG 16 – MDIF,
n.d.).
In
fact, a free press is essential to a democracy. Democracy is based on free
speech and open discourse. In a democratic system, this is the primary
corrective action the government can take. If democracy means that the people
run the government, then every person should be able to take part in the
process of democracy. Free and open debate on public issues is vital in order
to enable individuals to wisely exercise their right to make choices (Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978).
Article
19(1)(a) is similar to the U.S. Constitution (First Amendment - Freedom of
Religion, Speech.
When
examining the constitutional element of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code,
it becomes evident that it is categorised as a 'reasonable restriction'. This
section imposes penalties on individuals who intentionally and maliciously
insult, through spoken or written words or visible representations, the
religious beliefs of any particular class. The Supreme Court has ruled that
Section 295A of the IPC does not punish any act or attempt to insult a religion
or class of citizens. The law only applies to serious religious insults
intended to disrupt public order (Ramji Lal Modi case, 1957, 650). According to
the Indian penal code, anyone who employs verbal or written communication with
the intention of inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the
lawfully created government is subject to legal consequences (124 A, I.P.C.,
1860). The legality under the Constitution of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal
Code, which criminalises sedition, was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court
adopted the view that in cases where a legal provision can be interpreted in
two ways, one rendering it constitutional and the other rendering it
unconstitutional, the interpretation favouring its constitutionality should be
given priority. Accordingly, the Court decided that mere criticism of
government action, no matter how harshly stated, would be in line with the Fundamental
Right to freedom of speech and expression. In the interest of public order,
only words with a tendency to be harmful or that are intended to cause law and
order breaches would be punished (Kedar
Nath Singh Case, 1962, 955). The recent introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita Bill, 2023 (PRS, 2023) in the Lok Sabha, has brought about a
significant transformation in the realm of sedition laws, marked by the repeal
of the previous provision and the establishment of a novel framework. Notably, the
new bill, constituted in section 150, abolishes the term "sedition"
and instead presents a redefined concept that includes contemporary elements
like electronic communication. Furthermore, the utilization of the term
"electronic means" extends to various other sections of the new bill,
including section 351 which deals with legislation relating to the spreading of
false information and rumors. This underscores a deliberate incorporation of
modern technological dimensions which can be used to tackle the adverse effects
of deepfake-generated media.
The
element of a breakdown of peace is required for a matter to be considered
"public order."
The
term 'public order' encompasses all bases for action under Section 144 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. A form of extreme disturbance of the peace that
threatens the state's structures or its overthrow falls within the scope of the
phrase security of the state' and is capable of being punished (M. P. Jain,
2018, 1153).
Article
19(2) of the Indian Constitution places reasonable restrictions on freedom of
speech and expression in order to safeguard India's sovereignty and integrity
as a nation. Article 19(1)(a)'s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression
is subject to Articles 19(2), 129, and 215. The Supreme Court [Article 129] and
all High Courts [Article 215] have been granted the authority to punish
contempt of court. The concept of "The Trial by Media" Interfering
with the administration of justice is neither a permissible exercise of freedom
nor an unjustifiable restriction. Defamation constitutes both an offence and a
tort. In accordance with the prevalent moral standards of contemporary society,
decency or morality differs from society to society and over time. Some of the
offences listed in the Indian Penal Code are selling obscene books, and obscene
items to minors, committing an obscene act, and singing an obscene song in
public (Ss. 292 to 294 of the IPC, 1890). All of the limits that were discussed
earlier apply to deep fakes as well.
4.4
SDG-16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
The
correlation between press freedom and the right to information significantly
contributes to the realisation of Goal 16, particularly Target 10, which seeks
to ensure the safeguarding of the right to information access and the safety of
journalists (UN, 2016). The concept of freedom of information is intricately
connected to a culture of transparency. Societies that are open and
all-encompassing prioritise the protection of press freedom, which plays a
pivotal role in promoting sustainable development. However, Deepfake
technology, which creates highly manipulated content, can pose significant
challenges to achieving goal 16.
Deepfakes
can spread false information and misinformation rapidly (Korshunov &
Marcel, 2018, 1) When the public cannot trust the authenticity of the
information, it becomes difficult to hold institutions accountable and make
informed decisions. This can undermine the credibility of both journalism and
institutions, hampering efforts to achieve transparency and justice.
Deepfakes
can also be used to manipulate public perceptions, eroding trust in media and
institutions (Vasist & Krishnan, 2022, 3). If deepfakes are used to
disseminate false information about corruption or criminal activities, it can
hinder efforts to combat these issues effectively. Misinformation and
Disinformation can be weaponized against journalists, which can endanger their
safety, reputation, and the credibility of their work (Ireton & Posetti,
2018, 21). Deepfake technology can be used to create fake videos or audio
recordings that portray people saying or doing things they haven't done while
spreading false information. Moreover, Deepfakes can be used to create false
evidence or narratives, making it difficult to hold individuals or institutions
accountable for their actions (Sloot & Wagensveld, 2022, 6). This
challenges the rule of law and effective governance.
5. Conclusion & Suggestions
Press
freedom and the right to information are directly relevant to the achievement
of Goal 16, specifically target 10. This target aims to protect the right to
access information and safeguard fundamental freedoms. A culture of openness is
closely connected to the concept of freedom of information. As Joseph E.
Stiglitz stated, "Information is a public good...and as a public good, it
needs public support" (UNESCO,
Global Report 2021/2022, 2022, 20). Open and inclusive societies prioritize
the protection of press freedom, recognizing its crucial role in promoting
sustainable development. To achieve SDG 16.6 i.e. Developing effective,
accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels (UN, 2016), it is
crucial for the press, as a fourth institution, to enhance its effectiveness,
accountability, and transparency.
Regulating
deep fake journalism is a pressing need at present. The primary responsibility
of the courts is to protect and uphold freedom, specifically by invalidating
any regulations or administrative decisions that violate the constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of the press (Press
Council of India, 19799, n.d.). Strict scrutiny mandates that laws
restricting speech be carefully crafted in order to prevent individuals from
expressing truthful statements. While it is understandable that nations may
want to regulate fake news, it is crucial to avoid the serious and unacceptable
risk of suppressing truthful expression. The freedom of the press is more for
the well-being of the general populace than for the advantage of the press. The
community has a right to access information, and it is the responsibility of
the government and media to educate the public about the dangers of deepfake
technology. The advancement of technology has made it increasingly easy and
inexpensive to produce deepfakes. Therefore, journalists must stay alert and
proactive in order to anticipate and address potential future risks. Deepfakes
also compel journalists to establish an image's authenticity. In the battle
between trustworthy reporting and deceptive media, journalists must be armed
with the most efficient instruments and techniques for combating fake
journalism
.
Suggestions
To
mitigate the risks possessed by Deepfake Technology in the Journalism industry,
there's a need for strong regulations and technological solutions to detect and
counter deepfake content. Additionally, media literacy efforts can help the
public identify and critically assess potentially deceptive content, ensuring
that journalism remains a trusted source of information. And also:
1.
Introduce fact-checking initiatives: News
media organisations should invest in fact-checking initiatives because they
have to check the credibility of the media, thereby limiting the source of
deepfake.
2.
Creating effective tools for identifying deep
fakes: News Institutions are collaborating to create tools that can identify
deep fakes. For instance, Agence France-Presse is partnering with Google on its
"Assembler" platform, while the German radio broadcaster
"Deutsche Welle" is participating in the research project
"Digger". Such cooperative efforts have the potential to improve the
integrity and general caliber of journalism, as well as the knowledge gained
from instances of deepfake deception.
3.
Usage of Watermarks or Evidence: Journalists,
when they publish, should include evidence for
their readers that the content is not false. They can use watermarks or any
type of material as evidence to showcase their authenticity and develop a sense
of media literacy among the viewers.
4.
Law enforcement authorities must proactively
enhance their investigative capabilities: Addressing the potential threats of
deep fakes demands increased research efforts and financial support. Law
enforcement authorities must proactively envision plausible criminal scenarios
and enhance their investigative capabilities in response. That is why countries
are taking initiatives to enhance their research capabilities and counter the
effects of deep fakes in society. A study shows that China leads the list of
most research funding organisations, followed by the United States. Indian
policymakers should also invest in research and development to combat such
techniques.
References
(n.d.).
Home - SDG Accountability Portal. Retrieved August 4, 2023, from
https://www.sdgaccountability.org/
A.B.
602. (2019). Assembly Bill 602.
California Legislative Information. Retrieved August 16, 2023, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB602
AB
730. (2019). Assembly Bill 730.
California Legislative Information. Retrieved August 16,
2023,
from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB730
Al-Zaman, M. S. (2022). Prevalence and source
analysis of COVID-19 misinformation in 138 countries. IFLA Journal, 48(1),
189-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211041135
Ayyub,
R. (2018, May 22). Opinion | In India, Journalists Face Slut-Shaming and Rape
Threats
(Published
2018). In India, Journalists Face
Slut-Shaming and Rape Threats. Retrieved August 15, 2023, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/opinion/india-journalists-slut-shaming-rape.html
Barber,
A. (2023). Freedom of expression meets deepfakes. Synthese, 202(40).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04266-4
Berinsky,
A. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform. British Journal of Political Science,
47(2), 241-262.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000186
Brennen, J. S., Simon, F. M., & Nielsen,
R. K. (2021). Beyond (Mis)Representation: Visuals in COVID-19 Misinformation. The International Journal of Press/Politics,
26(1), 277-299.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964780
CAC. (2022, December 11). Regulations on the Administration of Deep
Synthesis of Internet Information Services. Cyberspace Administration of
China. Retrieved August 17, 2023, from
http://www.cac.gov.cn/2022-12/11/c_1672221949318230.htm
Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep
Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753.
https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D15J
Diakopoulos,
N., & Johnson, D. (2019). Anticipating and Addressing the Ethical
Implications of
Deepfakes
in the Context of Elections. New Media
& Society.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3474183
Election
Commission. (2023, January 23). ECI hosts
second International Conference on 'Use of
Technology & Elections Integrity' as
a follow on to the Summit for Democracy. PIB. Retrieved August 9,
2023, from https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1892999
European
Commission. (2021). EUR-Lex - 52021PC0206
- EN - EUR-Lex. EUR-Lex. Retrieved August 17, 2023, from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206
European Commission. (2021, April 21). Proposal for a Regulation laying down
harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Shaping Europe's digital
future. Retrieved August 17,
2023,
from
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonis
ed-rules-artificial-intelligence
Europol.
(2022). Facing reality? Law enforcement
and the challenge of deepfakes, an observatory report from the Europol
Innovation Lab. Publications Office of the European
Union,
Luxembourg.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/Europol_Innovation_La
b_Facing_Reality_Law_Enforcement_And_The_Challenge_Of_Deepfakes.pdf
Gangji,
I. (2022, June 13). Tackling Deepfakes in
Journalism | ICFJ. International Center for Journalists. Retrieved August
16, 2023, from https://www.icfj.org/news/tackling-deepfakes-journalism
Gil,
R., Virgili-Gomà, J., López-Gi, J.-M., & García, R. (2023). Deepfakes:
evolution and trends.
Soft Computing, 27, 11295–11318.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08605-y
Govindu,
V. (2011). CONTRADICTIONS IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
The Indian Journal of Political Science, 72(3).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858840
Hancock,
J. T., & Bailenson, J. N. (2021). The Social Impact of Deepfakes. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(3), 149-152.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.29208.jth
Heading,
S., & Zahidi, S. (2023). Global
gender gap report 2022: insight report. World
Economic
Forum.
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf
Ireton, C., & Posetti, J. (2018). Journalism, 'fake News' &
Disinformation: Handbook for Journalism Education and Training (C. Ireton
& J. Posetti, Eds.). United Nations
Educational,
Science, and Cultural Organization.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265552.locale=en
Kawthalkar,
A. R., & Shelke, D. A. (2022). Critical Analysis of Laws on Fake News in
India.
Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 8642–8652.
https://www.journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/download/5130/3344/5816
Kelly,
S. (2017, November). Manipulating Social
Media to Undermine Democracy. Freedom
House.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/manipulating-social-media-undermine
-democracy
Korshunov, P., & Marcel, S. (2018). DeepFakes: a New Threat to Face
Recognition? Assessment and Detection. ArXiv.
/abs/1812.08685. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.08685 Media and SDG 16 – MDIF. (n.d.). Media
Development Investment Fund. Retrieved August 20,
2023,
from https://www.mdif.org/media-and-sdg-16/#_edn3).
Meskys, E., Liaudanskas, A., Kalpokiene, J.,
& Jurcys, P. (2020, January). Regulating deep fakes: legal and ethical
considerations. Journal of Intellectual
Property Law & Practice,
15(1), 24-31.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz167
Mridha,
M.F., Keya, A. J., Hamid, M. A., Monowar, M. M., & Rahman, M. S. (2021). A
Comprehensive
Review on Fake News Detection With Deep Learning. IEEE Access, 9,
156151-156170.
https:doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3129329
Muhammed T, S., & Mathew, S. K. (2022).
The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media. International Journal of Data Science and
Analytics, 13, 271–285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6
Myneni,
S.R. (2006). Legal Research Methodology (1st
ed.). Allahabad Law Agency,India.
Naeem, S. B., Bhatti, R., & Khan, A.
(2021, June). An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and
putting public health at risk. Health
Info Libr J, 38(2), 143-149.
10.1111/hir.12320
Norris,
P. (2006, April 19). The role of the free
press in promoting democratization, good governance, and human development (*).
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
Retrieved
August 18, 2023, from
https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/articles/undp_rti_2006/annex3_bac
kground_paper.pdf
NPR.
(2022, March 16). A deepfake video
showing Volodymyr Zelenskyy surrendering worries experts. NPR. Retrieved
August 7, 2023, from
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1087062648/deepfake-video-zelenskyy-experts-war-man
ipulation-ukraine-russia
OECD.
(2014). Accountability and Democratic
Governance: Orientations and Principles for
Development.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264183636-en
Oxford
University Press. (2023, July). Deepfake.
Oxford English Dictionary.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/deepfake_n?tl=true&show-all-quotations=true&tab=mea
ning_and_use
Paris, B., & Donovan, J. (2019, September
18). Data & Society — Deepfakes and
Cheap Fakes. Data & Society. Retrieved August 15, 2023, from
https://datasociety.net/library/deepfakes-and-cheap-fakes/
Pawelec, M. (2022). Deepfakes and Democracy
(Theory): How Synthetic Audio?Visual Media for Disinformation and Hate Speech
Threaten Core Democratic Functions. Digital
Society, 1(19). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00010-6
Pfefferkorn,
R. (2020). 'Deepfakes' in the Courtroom. Boston
University Public Interest Law
Journal, 29(2).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4321140
Phartiyal,
S. (2019, February 28). Social media fake
news fans tension between India and Pakistan. Reuters. Retrieved August 9,
2023, from
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-socialmedia-idUSKCN1QH1NY
PRS.
(2023, August 9). THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023. PRS India. Retrieved August
21,
2023, from
https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2023/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita,_202
3.pdf
Quirk, C. (2023). The High Stakes of
Deepfakes: The Growing Necessity of Federal Legislation to Regulate This
Rapidly Evolving Technology. Princeton
Legal Journal.
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-high-stakes-of-deepfakes-the-growing-necessity-offederal-legislation-to-regulate-this-rapidly-evolving-technology/#_ftn6
Ray,
A. (2021). Disinformation, Deepfakes and Democracies: The Need for Legislative
Reform.
University of New South Wales Law
Journal, 44(3),
983-1013.
https://doi.org/10.53637/DELS2700
S6829A.
(2021, May 18). NY State Senate Bill
2021-S6829A. The New York State Senate.
Retrieved
August 16, 2023, from https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6829
Sayler,
K. M., & Harris, L. A. (2023, April 17). Deep Fakes and National Security. CRS Reports. Retrieved August 15,
2023, from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11333
S.B.
1736. (2022, October 2). SENATE BILL NO.
1736. Virginia Legislative Information System. Retrieved August 16, 2023,
from https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+SB1736
S.B.
337. (2019). 20 SB 337/AP S. B. 337 - 1 -
Senate Bill 337 By: Senators Thompson of the
14th, Robertson of the 29th, Dugan of
the 30th, Gooch. Georgia General Assembly. Retrieved August
16, 2023, from
https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20192020/194806
S.B.
751. (2019). 86(R) SB 751 - Enrolled
version - Bill Text. Texas Legislature Online. Retrieved August 16, 2023,
from https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/SB00751F.htm
Schiff, A. (2018, September 13). Schiff, Murphy and Curbelo Request DNI
Assess National Security Threats of “Deep Fakes”. Adam Schiff. Retrieved August
5, 2023, from
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-murphy-and-curbelo-request-dni-asses
s-national-security-threats-of-deep-fakes
Shahid,
W., Jamshidi, B., Hakak, S., Isah, H., Khan, W. Z., Khan, M. K., & Choo,
K.-K. R.
(2022).
"Detecting and Mitigating the Dissemination of Fake News: Challenges and
Future Research Opportunities,". IEEE
Transactions on Computational Social Systems.
https://dx.doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.19169795.v1
Sloot, B. V. d., & Wagensveld, Y. (2022).
Deepfakes: regulatory challenges for the synthetic society. Computer Law & Security Review, 46, 105716.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105716
Sunstein, C. R., & Sunstein, R. W. U. P.
C. (2021). Liars: Falsehoods and Free
Speech in an Age of Deception. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197545119.001.0001
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Nida Zafar,
N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations
between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
51, 72-82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026
THORNBERRY,
W. M. (2021, January 1). WILLIAM M. (MAC)
THORNBERRY NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2021. Congress.gov. Retrieved
August
16, 2023, from https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ283/PLAW-116publ283.pdf
UN. (2016, July 22). Goal 16: Right to press freedom and information - United Nations
Sustainable Development. the United Nations. Retrieved August 17, 2023,
from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/07/goal-16-right-to-press-freedom
-and-information/
United
Nations. (2022, February 21). India:
Attacks against woman journalist Rana Ayyub must stop - UN experts. ohchr.
Retrieved August 15, 2023, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/02/india-attacks-against-woman-journalistrana-ayyub-must-stop-un-experts
U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). Increasing
Threat of DeepFake Identities. Homeland Security. Retrieved August 7, 2023,
from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/increasing_threats_of_deepfake_iden
tities_0.pdf
Vaccari,
C. (2020). Deepfakes and Disinformation: Exploring the Impact of Synthetic
Political
Video
on Deception, Uncertainty, and Trust in News. Social Media+ Society, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408
Vasist,
P., & Krishnan, S. (2022). Deepfakes: An Integrative Review of the
Literature and an
Agenda
for Future Research. Communications of
the Association for Information
Systems, 51, 557. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05126
Wei,
R., & Lo, V. (n.d.). NEWS MEDIA USE AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE 2006 U.S.
MIDTERM
ELECTIONS: WHY EXPOSURE MATTERS IN VOTER LEARNING.
International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 20(03), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn032
World
Health Organization & Bradd, S. (2020, February). Infodemic. World Health Organization
(WHO).
Retrieved August 8, 2023, from
https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1