Quinn Paul
Recht en Criminologie, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels Free University, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussel, Belgium.
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2018 Feb 6;14(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s40504-018-0067-0.
Communication by public authorities during a crisis situation is an essential and indispensable part of any response to a situation that may threaten both life and property. In the online connected world possibilities for such communication have grown further, in particular with the opportunity that social media presents. As a consequence, communication strategies have become a key plank of responses to crises ranging from epidemics to terrorism to natural disaster. Such strategies involve a range of innovative practices on social media. Whilst being able to bring about positive effects, they can also bring about a range of harmful unintended side effects. This include economic harms produced by incorrect information and a range of social harms that can be fuelled by myths and rumours, worsening negative phenomena such as stigmatisation and discrimination. Given the potential for such harms, one might expect that affected or potentially affected individuals would be able to challenge such measures before courts or administrative tribunals. As this paper demonstrates however this is not the case. More often than not seemingly applicable legal approaches are unlikely to be able to engage such methods. This is often because such measures represent activities that are purely expressive in nature and therefore not capable of imposing any binding legal or corporeal changes on individuals. Whilst some forms of soft law may pose requirements for public officials involved in such activities (e.g. codes of conduct or of professional ethics), they are not likely to offer potentially harmed individuals the chance to to challenge particular communication strategies before courts or legal tribunals. The result is that public authorities largely have a free reign to communicate how they wish and do not have to have to comply with a range of requirements (e.g. relating to form and substantive) content) that would in general apply to most forms of official administrative act.
在危机情况下,公共当局的沟通是应对任何可能威胁生命和财产的情况的重要且不可或缺的一部分。在网络互联的世界中,这种沟通的可能性进一步增加,特别是社交媒体所带来的机遇。因此,沟通策略已成为从流行病到恐怖主义再到自然灾害等各类危机应对措施的关键支柱。此类策略涉及社交媒体上的一系列创新做法。虽然能够带来积极影响,但它们也可能带来一系列有害的意外副作用。这包括错误信息造成的经济危害以及一系列可能因谣言和传闻而加剧的社会危害,使污名化和歧视等负面现象恶化。鉴于存在此类危害的可能性,人们可能会期望受影响或可能受影响的个人能够在法院或行政法庭对这些措施提出质疑。然而,正如本文所表明的,情况并非如此。通常情况下,看似适用的法律方法不太可能适用于此类措施。这往往是因为此类措施本质上纯粹是表达性的活动,因此无法对个人施加任何具有约束力的法律或实体性改变。虽然某些形式的软法可能会对参与此类活动的公职人员提出要求(例如行为准则或职业道德准则),但它们不太可能为可能受到伤害的个人提供在法院或法律法庭质疑特定沟通策略的机会。结果是,公共当局在很大程度上可以自由地按其意愿进行沟通,而不必遵守通常适用于大多数官方行政行为形式的一系列要求(例如与形式和实质内容相关的要求)。