Many laws aimed at combating disinformation and misinformation are being passed in Western countries, with the partial exception of the United States, where the First Amendment is in effect. This situation has led to the implementation of more discreet censorship methods.

An unexpected response to these restrictive laws may come from literary criticism. The terms used, such as the prefixes added to the word “information”, are misleading. Information, whether contained in a book, article or otherwise, remains a passive artefact. It cannot act by itself, and therefore, it cannot break any law. The Nazis may have burned books, but they didn't arrest or imprison them. Thus, when lawmakers seek to prohibit “disinformation,” they cannot target information as such, but rather the creation of meaning.

Authorities use variations of the term “information” to imply that these are objective truths, but that is not the crux of the matter. Do these laws, for example, apply to the forecasts of economists or financial analysts, who regularly make erroneous predictions? Of course not. However, credible economic or financial forecasts could have a significant impact on populations.

These laws are designed more to target the intent of the authors, aiming to create meanings that do not conform to the official position of the government. “Disinformation” is generally defined in dictionaries as intentionally misleading and harmful information. In contrast, “misinformation” involves the dissemination of truthful facts, but with malicious intent. Determining the author's intent is often crucial in these cases.

read the article