One of the key pillars of democratic governance is the openness with which people can access and discuss information relevant to considering matters that concern them all. But it is often misrepresented as the freedom to say or show anything, in any manner whatsoever. Consequently, this freedom has been invoked as a licence for irresponsible communication, undermining objective deliberations and casting a shadow over the prospect of citizens attaining a shared understanding of what they should do as a group. In this chapter, we will look at why democracy needs to be able to count on responsible communication, what role should or should not be entrusted to those with media outlets, and how to foster responsible communication more systematically.

Why we need responsible communication

‘No one is to infringe our freedom of expression’ or ‘The freedom of the press must be protected’ – such sentiments are meant to reflect a firm commitment to democracy. But as with many shorthand slogans, they short change the truth. If there is no enforceable restriction on what and how people can communicate, those who use words, symbols, or images to promote, arrange, or facilitate any activities that damage others’ lives will be able to do so without ever having to justify themselves, or face any possible penalty.

The notion that democracy is premised on the absence of limits on communication is simply at odds with reality, not only because democratic objectivity has to be protected from lies and distortion, but no form of governance can survive when trust in every sphere of society is shaken by everyone being given a licence to deceive. The pivotal question is what the appropriate requirements are to be in light of the informed concerns of society's members.

Even US lawmakers, constrained by a constitution that explicitly declares under its First Amendment that ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’, have no doubt that legal action is necessary against irresponsible communication when certain conditions are met. There are at least five distinct categories where there is long-established consensus that government intervention is required.