That fake news and misinformation on Facebook could have influenced the outcome of the US presidential election is worrying (Opinion, 15 November), but, in reality, this is only tinkering around the edges of a major problem. The first amendment of the US constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press. However, for the most part, the supreme court has failed to use it to rule on libel cases: hence tabloids such as the National Enquirer can get away with printing pretty much anything they like.
It is possible to police the publishing and broadcasting industry – if nations are willing to do it. Sufficient staff (not robots) need to be employed to fact-check before publishing or broadcasting. Facebook has the power to influence on a macro scale, so it should also come under the same regulation. It certainly can afford the cost of editorial teams to manage its publications. There’s an easy rule: if in doubt, don’t publish. The Guardian already regulates this problem with the polite words: “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards.” Wikipedia, an open source encyclopedia, successfully regulates itself. Anyone can correct misinformation published on the site and citations are required, with it being very clear when a citation (proof) is missing. Information is democratically tuned in real time.
Alison Hackett
Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin, Ireland
• In recommending a pre-arrest name suppression regime for suspected sexual offences (Report, theguardian.com, 9 November), Richard Henriques, in his report on Operation Midland, supposes it to be unlikely that the government would sanction an anonymity before charge law, as this “would enrage the popular press whose circulation would suffer”. He is unduly pessimistic. It is true that some newspapers have raised the false spectre of “secret arrests”, but in 2013 no less a figure than David Cameron spoke warmly of the need to protect individuals from “genuinely life-changing publicity”. As home secretary, Theresa May agreed. A significant proportion of arrests on suspicion of having committed serious offences never lead to charge and the lives of many people have been needlessly blighted in consequence of being named in the media. A general ban on publishing the name of a suspect before charge could be lifted in exceptional cases where it was considered likely to encourage other genuine complainants to come forward, but only with advance judicial approval.
David Wolchover Ridgeway Chambers, Anthony Heaton-Armstrong 9-12 Bell Yard
Contributing co-editors, Witness Testimony in Sexual Cases
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read __more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters