UN General Assembly Addresses Disinformation Concerns with New Measures

In a significant diplomatic move, the United Nations General Assembly recently approved a resolution establishing a framework to address disinformation and hate speech, with 169 nations voting in favor. Notably, only three countries opposed the measure: the United States, Argentina, and Paraguay, while four others abstained.

The resolution, passed by the General Assembly’s Third Committee on social issues, has sparked intense debate about freedom of expression, national sovereignty, and the regulation of information in the digital age.

A U.S. diplomatic representative delivered a forceful critique of the resolution, arguing that it promotes “frameworks that undermine the sovereignty of states and infringe upon freedom of expression.” The American position emphasized constitutional protections for expression, even when it includes what might be considered hateful speech.

The U.S. objections also focused on the resolution’s approach to artificial intelligence regulation, characterizing it as a move toward a “centralized, globalized model” that could potentially stifle innovation through “broad and open-ended commitments to international frameworks.”

This latest resolution represents a marked departure from a version adopted two years ago that received support from the Biden administration. Critics point out that the current text grants significant authority to the UN Secretary-General and other UN bodies to determine censorship policies intended for global application, including those affecting private companies.

According to the resolution, nations have a “responsibility” to censor disinformation and counter it through official government messaging. This approach has raised concerns among free speech advocates, who note that “disinformation” lacks a standardized international definition and is frequently used to suppress legitimate political discourse on contentious issues including immigration, climate change, abortion, and transgender rights.

The resolution explicitly supports the United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity, an initiative launched by the Secretary-General. These principles endorse various content moderation tactics including direct and indirect censorship, official propaganda, and content suppression methods such as “stealth banning” and demonetization—practices that involve blocking or limiting user content without notification.

Critics have linked these mechanisms to systems recently investigated by the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Instrumentalization of the Federal Government, suggesting they represent overreaching social control efforts.

The framework has reportedly been developed with input from both the U.S. State Department and the European Union. According to some observers, it aims to suppress political movements similar to Donald Trump’s MAGA campaign in America and the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom. The incoming Trump administration has indicated plans to dismantle this system.

The U.S. delegation argued that most countries lack America’s strong traditions of self-government and do not place the same value on freedom of expression that has historically characterized U.S. policy.

By contrast, the European Union has positioned itself as a leading proponent of regulatory oversight for online content. The EU’s Digital Services Act and AI Act require technology companies to restrict certain political opinions deemed problematic by the European Commission, particularly regarding migration, climate policy, and transgender issues.

European officials have defended their regulatory framework as a global model, framing censorship measures as “necessary protective measures to guarantee human rights.”

A recent example of this European approach was French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a media “labeling” system to be administered by a committee of journalists—a suggestion made while criticizing the French opinion channel CNews.

Religious freedom advocates have expressed concern that these principles, which they compare to censorship mechanisms used in authoritarian states like China, could also impact religious expression, including Catholic doctrine.