ABSTRACT
The conclusion refers to crucial and sometimes controversial questions raised in the volume. First, the pertinence of considering the intent (not) to deceive, in the formulation of political and judicial responses to false information, is analyzed. If the determination of the intent of the speaker is of interest, notably for normative reasons, it raises methodological questions. Second, the nature of the claims to be included in fact-checking is examined. In this regard, predictions should not be excluded from verifiable claims due to their importance to the referendum process and their role in the forming of public opinion. Third, judicial or quasi-judicial remedies against misinformation are available in several democracies, but there may be limits on the types of misinformation which can be challenged before courts or specialized commissions; the point is made in the conclusion that any judicial or quasi-judicial intervention against misinformation, spread by private organizations or individuals, should be reserved to very particular circumstances. Finally, the need for regulation is examined: Measures such as banning misinformation, ensuring transparency of information, or providing private and public fact-checking are assessed and judicial remedies are proposed.
