On the other hand, the positive responsibility of the state to prevent undue interference by third parties must not lead to undue state intervention, through excessive or undue regulation which can result in undermining the very rights that it is meant to protect. Unjustified state surveillance of private communications and the different ways in which online platforms may be used so as to – intentionally or accidentally – affect the flow of information, directly curb the freedom of expression, hinder democratic dialogue, and infringe the principles of institutional neutrality and electoral equity. While it is understandable, in the context described above, that currently many states have on their agenda to tackle the issue of “fake news” with legislation, this may pose a threat to the fundamental right of freedom of expression and information – bearing in mind that exaggerated speech enjoys protection under international human rights standards such as Article 10 ECHR. Enabling the authorities to interfere with the public discourse may be abused to silence dissidents and prevent discussion which challenges mainstream thought and restricting criticism of societal attitudes. As the Venice Commission emphasised, “the mass media are not the only category that should be entitled to a high level of freedom of expression. Thus, persons who impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and contribute to the public debate on such matters, including members of campaign groups and elected representatives, should be allowed a high level of freedom of expression, including a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation as long as they act in good faith and exercise due diligence in order to provide accurate and reliable information”.