Disinformation as a manifestation of violation of the right to access to information

The relevance of scientific research is because the right to access to information is one of the constitutional rights of a person and the guilty persons are held accountable for its violation. As an example of such violations, the following were mentioned: unfounded attribution of information to information with limited access, failure to respond to a request for information, failure to provide information, wrongful refusal to provide information, untimely or incomplete provision of information, provision of unreliable information leads to negative consequences, etc. The statement that medical information about the state of health is confidential, but the lack of knowledge of one’s rights (the possibility to take a photo of one’s medical card), and sometimes the lack of time (due to the state of health) prevents the realization of the right to information was A separate point of the study. Attention is drawn to the fact that one of the ways to counteract and fight the consequences of disinformation (which are always negative) is to increase media literacy in society, since people are not always aware of their rights and cannot defend them. It is noted that one of the aspects in ensuring the realization of the right to information is the clarification of certain categories, namely: “unreliable”, “false”, “unverified”, “unscrupulous”, “disinformation”, etc. It is emphasized that when solving the issue of recognition of widespread information as unreliable, it is necessary to determine the nature of such information and find out whether it is a factual statement or an evaluative judgment. A problematic aspect regarding the use of the category “unreliable information” has been identified in the Civil Code, in particular, and the very definition of this type of information is not fixed in it. Therefore, there is a need to refer to other documents to interpret it. The judgment on the norm contained in Article 31 of the Civil Code is also argued, namely that subjects of authority are plaintiffs in cases of protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation. The inaccuracy lies in the fact that this right is guaranteed only to subjects of power, not just ordinary citizens, and foreigners. Attention is also paid to the use of the category “unscrupulous”, but a clear definition of which is also missing. The author’s understanding is proposed: “unfair information” – information that misleads or may mislead information seekers, harms individuals, the state or society due to inaccuracy, unreliability, falsehood, ambiguity, exaggeration, silence, violation of requirements regarding the time, place, and method of dissemination. There is no separate term “unverified information” in the legal field. Instead, there is the concept of “unreliable information.” But I share the opinion that it is not the same thing. Determining the differences between “misinformation” and “unreliable information”, it was emphasized that the former is created purposefully (deliberately) with the aim of causing harm/benefit, which can be of an economic, political and other nature. Misinformation is always misleading, manipulative, and false information that can be spread as absolute fiction or real facts that are distorted or manipulated.

human rights, disinformation, access to public information, unreliable information, false information, fact-checking