Communication by public authorities during a crisis situation is an essential and indispensable part of any response to a situation that may threaten both life and property. In the online connected world possibilities for such communication have grown further, in particular with the opportunity that social media presents. As a consequence, communication strategies have become a key plank of responses to crises ranging from epidemics to terrorism to natural disaster. Such strategies involve a range of innovative practices on social media. Whilst being able to bring about positive effects, they can also bring about a range of harmful unintended side effects. This include economic harms produced by incorrect information and a range of social harms that can be fuelled by myths and rumours, worsening negative phenomena such as stigmatisation and discrimination. Given the potential for such harms, one might expect that affected or potentially affected individuals would be able to challenge such measures before courts or administrative tribunals. As this paper demonstrates however this is not the case. More often than not seemingly applicable legal approaches are unlikely to be able to engage such methods. This is often because such measures represent activities that are purely expressive in nature and therefore not capable of imposing any binding legal or corporeal changes on individuals. Whilst some forms of soft law may pose requirements for public officials involved in such activities (e.g. codes of conduct or of professional ethics), they are not likely to offer potentially harmed individuals the chance to to challenge particular communication strategies before courts or legal tribunals. The result is that public authorities largely have a free reign to communicate how they wish and do not have to have to comply with a range of requirements (e.g. relating to form and substantive) content) that would in general apply to most forms of official administrative act.

中文翻译：

---

突发公共卫生事件中的危机沟通：数字时代的“法律控制”的局限性和有害后果的风险

在应对可能威胁生命和财产的局势时，公共机构在危机情况下的沟通是必不可少的部分。在在线连接的世界中，尤其是随着社交媒体的出现，这种交流的可能性进一步增加。结果，沟通策略已成为应对从流行病到恐怖主义到自然灾害等危机的关键平台。此类策略涉及社交媒体上的一系列创新实践。尽管能够带来积极的影响，但它们也可能带来一系列有害的意想不到的副作用。其中包括错误信息造成的经济损害以及神话和谣言助长的一系列社会损害，恶化的负面现象，例如污名化和歧视。考虑到潜在的危害，人们可能希望受影响或潜在受影响的个人能够在法院或行政法庭上对此类措施提出质疑。正如本文所演示的，事实并非如此。看似适用的法律方法往往不太可能采用这种方法。这通常是因为此类措施代表的活动本质上纯粹是表达性的，因此无法对个人施加任何有约束力的法律或有形变更。尽管某些形式的软法可能会对参与此类活动的公职人员提出要求（例如行为守则或职业道德），他们不太可能给受到潜在伤害的个人提供在法庭或法律法庭面前挑战特定沟通策略的机会。结果是，公共主管部门在很大程度上可以自由地表达自己的意愿，而不必遵守通常适用于大多数形式的官方行政的一系列要求（例如，与形式和实质相关的内容）行为。