Sample Solution

Disinformation and malformation be subject to criminal liability Concerns regarding the impact of viral dissemination of disinformation on democratic systems of government, on political discourse, on public trust in state institution, and on social harmony have been expressed by many around the world. The use of technological tools and techniques, including bots, big data, trolling, deep-fakes, and others, enables those intending to manipulate public opinion by spreading false, inaccurate, or misleading information, to reach targeted and potentially endless audiences. While the dangers associated with the viral distribution of disinformation are widely recognized, the potential harm that may derive from disproportional measures to counter disinformation should not be underestimated. Deliberate spread of disinformation and misinformation should be a subject to criminal liability because of its impacts. False rumors that target specific individuals can have major consequences. These individuals may be harassed on social media, targeted by insults and threats that sometimes have real-life impacts. It also has democratic impacts. For example, false information played a major role in the last American presidential election.

ights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and in particular, Article 24 requirement that the education system is directed to the development by persons with disabilities ‘of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential. The Commission’s analysis was that the aims of the Bill were in accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and UNCRPD. These aims are;

• To reform SEN provision.
• To place children, young people and families at the centre of decision making, enable them to participate in a fully informed way, and with a focus on achieving the best possible outcomes.

The EHRC (2012) also emphasised the fact that the Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen compliance with the Equality Act 2010 in relation to duties on education providers to make reasonable adjustments for children with disabilities, and to set out how the new SEN arrangements and the Equality Act requirements can work together to make educational provision for disabled children fit for purpose, and in line with the requirements of the UNCPRD. Statements of SEN are to be replaced by new Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans. However, some would argue that more clarity is needed with regards to the Bill and in the Code about how the support needs of disabled pupils without an EHC plan, who currently receive support under School Action or School Action Plus, are to be met. The EHRC (2102) stated that they were aware that government is introducing these changes to address concerns from Ofsted (2010) that pupils are being given SA and SA+ support when actually what they need is better teaching. Ofsted stated in its report of (2010) that as many as half of