Model UN Background Guide

Committee: SOCHUM (Third Committee, General Assembly)
Topic: Disinformation and Freedom of Expression
Conference Year: 2026

Topic Background

Disinformation—deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive—has emerged as a critical global challenge in the digital age. Historically, issues of freedom of expression have been central to the United Nations since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which enshrined the right to seek, receive, and impart information. However, the rapid expansion of the internet, social media platforms, and digital communication since the early 21st century has transformed the landscape of information dissemination. While these technologies have democratized access to information, they have also facilitated the rapid spread of disinformation campaigns that threaten democratic processes, public health, social cohesion, and international security.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the dangers of disinformation, as false claims about the virus, treatments, and vaccines proliferated globally, undermining public health responses. Similarly, disinformation has been weaponized to influence elections, incite violence, and destabilize governments. This dual challenge—protecting freedom of expression while combating harmful disinformation—has placed the issue prominently on the agenda of the Third Committee. The rise of artificial intelligence-generated content, deepfakes, and increasingly sophisticated misinformation tactics have intensified calls for international cooperation and normative guidance.

In 2026, this topic remains urgent as states grapple with balancing human rights obligations with the need to regulate digital spaces. The complexity of cross-border disinformation campaigns, often involving non-state actors, requires multilateral dialogue on definitions, responsibilities of states and private companies, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

Key Actors

States

• United States: A leading actor in promoting freedom of expression and digital rights, while actively combating disinformation, especially related to electoral interference and foreign influence operations. The U.S. often emphasizes the role of private sector regulation and transparency.
• China: Prioritizes state sovereignty over cyberspace and advocates for stronger state control of online content, often framing disinformation as a threat to social stability and national security. China supports restrictive measures that sometimes limit freedom of expression in favor of combating harmful content.
• European Union (represented by member states such as Germany and France): The EU has developed comprehensive strategies combining regulation (e.g., Digital Services Act), media literacy, and cooperation with tech companies to address disinformation while safeguarding fundamental rights. It promotes a balanced approach between regulation and freedom of expression.
• Russia: Frequently accused by Western states of engaging in disinformation campaigns abroad, Russia emphasizes the need to combat so-called “fake news,” often supporting measures that increase state control over online speech. It stresses sovereignty and non-interference in domestic information policies.
• India: Facing domestic challenges with misinformation impacting communal harmony and elections, India advocates for a context-specific approach that respects sovereignty and cultural diversity, while emphasizing digital literacy.

International Organizations

• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Plays a central role in promoting media and information literacy as tools against disinformation, and upholds freedom of expression as a fundamental right.
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Provides normative guidance emphasizing that measures against disinformation must comply with international human rights law, particularly freedom of expression and privacy rights.
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU): Engages in technical standard-setting and capacity-building related to cybersecurity and information integrity.
• Council of Europe: Through its Committee of Ministers and specialized bodies, it advocates for human rights-based approaches to disinformation and supports member states in developing legal frameworks.

Bloc Positions

Western Democracies (e.g., United States, Canada, EU members, Japan, Australia)

• Emphasize the protection of freedom of expression as a cornerstone of democracy.
• Advocate for transparency and accountability of social media platforms and tech companies.
• Support media literacy and public awareness campaigns to empower citizens to identify disinformation.
• Prefer voluntary or co-regulatory frameworks rather than heavy-handed state censorship.
• Stress the importance of countering foreign interference and election-related disinformation.

Authoritarian and Sovereignty-Focused States (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia)

• Prioritize state sovereignty and security over unrestricted freedom of expression.
• Support strong state regulation or control of online content to combat disinformation and maintain social order.
• Often reject the notion that internet governance should be multilateral or influenced by Western norms.
• Criticize what they perceive as Western double standards or censorship under the guise of combating disinformation.

Developing and Emerging Economies (e.g., India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia)

• Seek balanced approaches that consider local contexts, including linguistic diversity and varying levels of digital access.
• Advocate for capacity-building in digital literacy and infrastructure to reduce vulnerabilities.
• Support collaboration between states, civil society, and private sector.
• Cautious about overly restrictive measures that could stifle freedom of expression or exacerbate inequalities.

Civil Society and Human Rights Advocates (represented indirectly through state allies)

• Stress that any measures against disinformation must comply with international human rights standards.
• Warn against laws that could be used to suppress dissent or legitimate criticism.
• Promote transparency, independent oversight, and protection for journalists and whistleblowers.

Past UN Action

• General Assembly Resolution 73/284 (2019): Addressed the safety of journalists and the issue of disinformation in the context of freedom of expression.
• Human Rights Council Resolution 38/7 (2018): Affirmed that restrictions on freedom of expression related to combating disinformation must comply with international law.
• Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (various years): Provided detailed analysis on disinformation, emphasizing the need to balance combating false information with protecting free speech.
• UNESCO’s Global Media and Information Literacy initiatives: Ongoing programs aimed at empowering individuals to critically assess information sources.
• General Assembly Resolution 74/148 (2019): Highlighted the importance of combating the dissemination of terrorist content online, intersecting with disinformation concerns.

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

1. How can states effectively combat disinformation without infringing on the right to freedom of expression?
2. What role should social media companies and other private sector actors play in identifying and mitigating disinformation?
3. How can international cooperation be strengthened to address cross-border disinformation campaigns?
4. What safeguards should be implemented to prevent misuse of anti-disinformation laws to suppress dissent or minority voices?
5. How can media and information literacy be promoted globally, especially in developing countries, to build societal resilience against disinformation?
6. What mechanisms can be established to ensure transparency and accountability in content moderation practices?
7. How should emerging technologies (e.g., AI, deepfakes) be regulated to prevent their use in spreading disinformation?

Further Reading

• UN Documents: Reports and resolutions from the Human Rights Council, General Assembly, and Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression; UNESCO publications on media literacy and disinformation; OHCHR guidance on human rights-compliant approaches to information regulation.
• Think-Tank Reports: Analysis from institutions such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) focusing on digital governance, disinformation strategies, and policy recommendations.
• News Outlets and Media Analysis: Investigative journalism and in-depth features from reputable international media such as BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters that track disinformation trends, government responses, and case studies worldwide.

This background guide aims to provide delegates with a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics between disinformation and freedom of expression, equipping them to negotiate balanced, human rights-compliant solutions in SOCHUM 2026.