Debate preparation: Should the state be allowed to remove false information?

In week 24, you will debate a question in class that experts around the world struggle with: Should the state be allowed to remove false information? This module prepares you for it – like “Building an argument: Should the state regulate prices?”, it is deliberately more than just a knowledge module: it gives you the tools and material for both sides. This module takes no position – you will weigh up the arguments in the debate.

First, the tool you know from “Building an argument: Should the state regulate prices?” – the argument structure:

1. Claim – What do you want to say? A clear sentence that takes a position.
2. Reason – Why is it true? The reason, introduced by “because” or “since”.
3. Example – What shows this? A concrete case or a figure as evidence that can be checked.

Without a reason and an example, all you have is an unsupported claim – and that will not persuade anyone who does not already agree with you. In this debate, you need the structure twice over: for your own arguments, and to recognise whether the other side is actually making an argument – or just making claims.

And you bring more prior knowledge than you think: from “Democracy as a principle”, you know about fundamental rights and the protection of minorities; from “Authoritarian systems today”, about censorship in authoritarian systems; from “Media and how opinions are formed”, about fake news and how it spreads; and from “Deconstructing conspiracy theories”, about how conspiracy narratives work. You are about to turn precisely this knowledge into arguments.

Why is this question so difficult? Because two legitimate concerns clash here – a real dilemma:

On one side: freedom of expression. It is a human right and a cornerstone of democracy (“Democracy as a principle”): without the freedom to say things that are uncomfortable, controversial or false, there can be no open negotiation – and no holding those in power to account. Remember: freedom of expression also protects mistakes. If you could only say what was officially accepted as true, you would no longer be free.

On the other side: the harm caused by deliberate disinformation. A fictional but realistic scenario: one Saturday evening in the fictional municipality of Musterberg, a false report spreads claiming that the drinking water is contaminated with chemicals – supposedly “confirmed by an official source”. Within hours: worried families, bottled water shelves stripped bare, an overloaded council phone line, and people taking medication out of fear. On Sunday, the council's denial reaches only a fraction of those who saw the false report. The harm is real – even though not a word of the report was true.

Between these two concerns lies the question for debate: should the state be allowed to have such content removed – actively taken off the internet? Two distinctions are invaluable in the debate:

• An honest mistake or deliberate disinformation? Someone who is honestly mistaken is not spreading disinformation. Deliberate disinformation is spread in the knowledge that it is false, to deceive people. That sounds clear – but it can be difficult to prove in an individual case.
• An opinion or a factual claim? “I think the indoor swimming pool is ugly” is an opinion – it cannot be “false”. “The drinking water is contaminated” is a factual claim – it is either true or false. The debate concerns false factual claims, not opinions.

Here are three fully developed arguments for each side – each following the structure claim – reason – example. All examples are fictional or draw on general historical experience; you do not need real current cases of content removal for the debate.

FOR: the state should be allowed to remove deliberately false information

1. Claim: Removing content protects the way people form opinions in a democracy. Reason: Democracy depends on those affected forming their opinions on the basis of real information (“Democracy as a principle” and “Media and how opinions are formed”) – deliberate disinformation distorts that basis. Example: If a made-up report about supposed secret plans circulates widely before a fictional local vote, many people end up voting on a fabrication rather than the issue itself.
2. Claim: Removing content prevents panic and real harm. Reason: False reports about dangers spread faster than any denial – and people act on them. Example: The fictional drinking water alert in Musterberg: empty shelves, overloaded emergency phone lines, frightened families – the harm was real, even though not a word was true.
3. Claim: Removing content protects individuals from damage to their reputations. Reason: Made-up factual claims can ruin lives, and corrections never reach everyone who saw the false report (“Media and how opinions are formed”). Example: A fictional restaurant is falsely accused of serving rotten meat – customers stay away, even months after the denial.

AGAINST: the state should not be allowed to remove content

1. Claim: Who decides what is false? Reason: Whether a claim is true often only becomes clear later – knowledge develops, and authorities can be wrong too. A state body that issues binding verdicts of “true” and “false” is difficult to reconcile with freedom of expression. Example: A report removed too hastily may turn out to be partly accurate months later – by then, the mistake is hard to put right, and trust has been damaged twice over.
2. Claim: The power to remove content invites abuse. Reason: Tools of power rarely remain limited to their original purpose – anyone who can decide what gets removed can also use that power to silence criticism. Example: You know the pattern from “Authoritarian systems today”: authoritarian systems regularly justify censorship as a “fight against false information” – but what mainly gets removed is whatever displeases the leadership.
3. Claim: Removing content can have the opposite effect. Reason: Banned content seems all the more interesting – and its removal itself feeds the narrative of “suppressed knowledge” that you know from “Deconstructing conspiracy theories”. Example: The Streisand effect takes its name from a case in 2003: an attempt to have a single photograph removed from the internet brought that very photograph worldwide attention.

Remember: Both sides follow the argument structure properly – and both draw on knowledge from this topic. You will decide in the debate which arguments carry more weight.

In the debate, it can quickly seem as though there are only two options: leave everything up or remove everything. In fact, there is a whole set of tools in between – knowing them helps you make more nuanced arguments:

• Labelling instead of removing content: The content stays online but gets a visible notice (“disputed”, “reviewed by fact-checkers”) and a link to reliable information. The report remains available to read – but nobody comes across it without a warning.
• Independent fact-checks: Specialist editorial teams check viral claims and publish reports showing how they reached their conclusions – correction through more speech rather than a ban. This connects to the culture of correcting errors discussed in “Media and how opinions are formed”.
• Reducing visibility: Platforms can recommend and circulate false reports less often without removing them – the report can still be found, but the algorithm no longer amplifies it.
• Platform rules or a state ban? An important distinction: platform rules are the house rules of private companies – break them and you can be removed from the service, just as you can be expelled from a club. A state ban, on the other hand, applies to everyone, is enforced through state power and is a matter for the courts. For the debate, this means you can oppose removal by the state while still believing that platforms should take action – or the other way round.
• Media literacy as an antidote: The more people master the three checks from “Media and how opinions are formed” and the checking questions from “Deconstructing conspiracy theories”, the less harm false reports cause – without any intervention at all.

Now you have everything: the structure, the dilemma, three arguments for each side and the middle-ground solutions. This module has taken no position – now it is your turn: you will weigh up the arguments in your debate.