More alarmingly, hostile and politically opportunistic forces have intensified their efforts to undermine and distort the decree, baselessly accusing Viet Nam of restricting freedom of expression.
The internet and social media are crucial domains for learning, working, production, business, and social interaction. Alongside their positive value, however, there have also been a proliferation of legal violations, including the dissemination of fake and distorted information, defamation, online fraud, intellectual property infringement, theft of personal data, and insults to the honour and dignity of organisations and individuals, as well as many other acts that compromise national security and social order and safety.
On May 15, 2026, the Government issued Decree No. 174, which delineates specific violations, forms of penalties, remedial measures, and the authority to impose penalties for violations in the fields covered by the decree, including the dissemination of fake information.
Viet Nam is not the only country to levy sanctions against the dissemination of fake information. Germany enacted the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), requiring digital platforms to swiftly address illegal content. Singapore enforces the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which allows authorities to require corrections or the removal of false information in cases prescribed by law. The European Union has introduced various mechanisms to combat disinformation and increase the responsibility of online platforms through the Digital Services Act.
In France, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Australia, acts of defamation, attacks on honour, or the dissemination of false information may also incur civil, administrative, or criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. This reflects a global trend of protecting freedom of expression while also requiring social media users to take responsibility for the content they publish.
Decree No. 174 contains no provision imposing penalties on people for expressing opinions, offering commentary, or presenting views that diverge from official stances. It only provides for the sanctioning of specific acts that constitute legal violations, such as providing or sharing fabricated or false information, distorted content, or defamatory material that damages the reputation of agencies or organisations or the honour and dignity of individuals; providing or sharing press, literary, or artistic works, or publications without the consent of the intellectual property rights holder, or before they have been authorised for circulation, or after a decision has been issued banning their circulation or ordering their confiscation; and other such acts.
These are acts that have been regulated by many legal systems around the world to protect the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organisations and ensure order and safety in cyberspace. However, some social media accounts, fan pages, and groups have deliberately distorted the regulations, claiming that Decree No. 174 prohibits or restricts people from sharing press articles, thereby inciting public outrage and calling for boycotts of mainstream media.
Article 95 of the decree explicitly categorises “using social media to produce content in the form of journalistic reports, investigations, or interviews” as a violation of the regulations governing the responsibilities of social media service users. According to legal experts and journalists, the provision is intended to prevent some individuals from impersonating journalists, presenting themselves as “reporters” or “investigators”, and staging programmes in a journalistic format to create false credibility, exert pressure on, or extort businesses, or disseminate unverified information.
Such acts not only infringe upon the rights of those being reported on but also erode public trust in mainstream journalism. Preventing the misuse of social media to impersonate journalistic activities does not mean prohibiting citizens from reporting wrongdoing or denouncing violations of the law. Citizens still have the right to make reports, petitions, and denunciations, and to provide information to press agencies or state authorities in accordance with the law.
Some other claims argue that Decree No. 174 sets excessively high penalties in an attempt to restrict freedom of expression. This is also an unobjective and highly speculative interpretation. In practice, under the law on administrative violations, penalties are always established in accordance with the principle that they should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the violation and the consequences it causes. The dissemination of fake information can inflict profound damage to individuals, businesses, financial markets, and state administration, and may even imperil national security and social order. Imposing sufficiently deterrent penalties is necessary to raise internet users’ awareness of their legal obligations and protect the lawful rights and interests of individuals, organisations, and the community.
According to legal experts, Decree No. 174 was issued on the basis of a number of existing laws, including the Law on Handling Administrative Violations, the Law on Telecommunications, the Law on Electronic Transactions, the Law on Information Technology, and other relevant legal provisions. The decree is intended to operationalise provisions of these laws and ensure consistency across the legal system.
Around the world, no country recognises the dissemination of false information as part of the right to freedom of expression. If individuals were free to fabricate information, defame, or insult others without bearing any responsibility, the rights and freedoms of everyone else would be infringed. Therefore, establishing sanctions against the dissemination of fake information is, in essence, a means of protecting a healthy information environment in which freedom of expression can be exercised responsibly. In the digital age, standards of conduct in cyberspace should be built on the values of honesty, responsibility, respect for the law, and respect for human rights.
To effectively counter distortions of Decree No. 174, competent authorities should continue to strengthen legal education and public awareness campaigns so that people understand the decree’s nature and objectives correctly, while proactively providing authoritative information and promptly dismantling falsehoods on social media. Every citizen should continue to improve their information-verification skills and refrain from sharing unverified content, thereby contributing to the building of a civilised and responsible online environment.
