Hate speech and social media: Combating a dangerous relationship (original) (raw)
Related papers
-National definition of hate speech -Contextual elements of Hate Speech -Alternative methods of tackling Hate Speech -Distinction between blasphemy and Hate Speech based on religion -Networking sites and the issue of online anonymity -Tackling the notions of “violence”, “hatred” and “clear presence of danger" -Justifying the distinction between articles 10.2 and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights -Harmonization of national legislation -Legal implications of “hate speech” -Comparative analysis
ECMI Working Papers, n.118, 2019
Europe is experiencing at present intense dilemmas in regulating hate speech and online harassment. Free speech exercise can be offensive and even contribute to a climate of prejudice and discrimination against minorities. Often, the media exacerbate the tendency by reporting negatively about minorities. The first working paper on this topic engages with the normative dimensions of the balance between the need to control and limit incitement to violence in reconciliation with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Three distinct aspects of hate speech are covered: the first relates to the role of freedom of expression as a tool of inclusiveness. With the limits of liberal tolerance being unclear, just like the definition of hate speech itself, legal actors and systems are torn between criminalising the speaker’s motive alone or in conjunction with the effects of the speech. A survey of recent related European Court of Human Rights case-law demonstrates these ambiguities. The second aspect covered looks at the challenges of the regulation of the freedom of expression in the digital age, with emphasis of the online dimensions of the phenomenon from a legal perspective. The final aspect of the paper proposes an actor-based analysis of hate speech, as it emerges from the current regulatory frameworks applied. This section deals not only with the role of the State but also with that of equality bodies, political parties and private businesses in providing more efficient networks of protection of minorities from such violent expressions of hatred.
Brussels: European Parliament, 2020
This study was commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. The study argues that hate speech and hate crimes poison societies by threatening individual rights, human dignity and equality, reinforcing tensions between social groups, disturbing public peace and public order, and jeopardising peaceful coexistence. The lack of adequate means of prevention and response violates values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU. Member States have diverging rules, and national public administrations are torn by disagreement in values. Therefore, EU regulation is needed to reinforce the existing standards and take measures to counter hate speech and counter-act against hate speech and hate crime. The study – on the basis of a cross-country comparison conducted – proposes concrete, enforceable and systematic soft and hard law measures to counter hate speech and hate crimes EU-wide efficiently.
2019
One of the most essential problems of modern media law is the collision between freedom of expression and hate speech. Rapid development of the Internet and social media have greatly contributed to the realization of freedom of expression worldwide, but at the same time increased dissemination of hate speech. In the new media environment, establishing control over hate speech while simultaneously protecting freedom of expression became a global issue. This thesis attempts at looking at this problem from two different perspectives: from the position of the European Court of Human Rights which has a long history of passing judgments in cases related to hate speech, and from the point of view of the major social media which in the last decade have developed their own rules and measures regarding this issue. In order to establish how the European Court of Human Rights decides whether the speech in question is hate speech or not, more than 30 judgments of the Court are analyzed in detail...
M. John, V.H. Devaiah, P.Baruah, M. Tundawala, N. Kumar (eds.) Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2019, Springer, 255-279 , 2021
Europe is experiencing an intense dilemma in regulating hate speech and online harassment. The question in the European continent has shifted from whether there should be limits to freedom of expression to where these limits should be placed. The aim of this chapter is to explore the features of some of the approaches undertaken in Europe on online hate speech regulation within the broader digital ecosystem, through a comparison between a supra-national and a national example, the EU and Germany respectively in order to reflect on the broad directions on the regulation of online content moderation as connected to hate speech. To do so, the analysis first discusses the normative underpinnings of hate speech regulation placing emphasis briefly on the main applicable international legal standards on the issue and then on the (often) invoked concepts of autonomy and dignity as they relate to freedom of expression. It then proceeds with an overview of the current features in the governance of online hate speech, approaching two concrete challenges in the regulation of online hate speech, namely the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Information Technology (IT) companies and the limits of the role of the states in online content regulation (digital authoritarianism). The second part of the article deals with the examples of the EU framework on online hate speech regulation as compared with the German one, in order to conclude arguing for the need for more regulatory imagination in combatting hate speech in the digital ecosystem that escapes the routine of shifting regulation to non-state actors, such as online intermediaries.
International Journal of Digital Law and Governance, 2024
The increasing significance of online communication services is not yet matched by adequate protections for particularly vulnerable groups, such as minorities, who are disproportionately affected by various forms of digital violence. This article examines a legislative initiative introduced by the German government in 2023, which aims to supplement the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and address certain enforcement gaps in safeguarding individual rights. The analysis reveals that the initiative still faces substantial legal challenges, especially given the harmonizing nature of the DSA, which may require a more refined approach to its ambitious goals. However, a review of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law concerning the state's obligation to protect individuals from hate speech suggests that the primary issues outlined in the draft should continue to be pursued. The article contextualizes the initiative within the socio-technical environment where ethnocultural minorities are targeted online, particularly through hate speech. By situating the initiative within the current socio-legal framework and incorporating a comparative perspectivedrawing on regulatory models from Canada, the UK, and Australiait highlights key challenges that lie ahead.
European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and …, 2011
This article examines the complexities of regulating hate speech on the Internet through legal frameworks. It demonstrates the limitations of unilateral national content legislation and the difficulties inherent in multilateral efforts to regulate the Internet. The article highlights how the US commitment to free speech has undermined European efforts to construct a truly international regulatory system. It is argued that a broad coalition of citizens, industry and government, employing technological, educational and legal frameworks, may offer the most effective approach through which to limit the effects of hate speech originating from outside of European borders.
International Legal Framework For Dealing With Hate Speech
Journal of International Relations, 2017
The extremely large usage of social networks has provoked wide spread of hate speech. One is not being able to make a difference whether it comes to hate speech, hate crime or other form of discrimination. Legislation in this area is not clear and social networks usually remain outside the laws and this creates further confusion for the institutions. In fact, in many countries the hate speech is not penalized. Therefore, we need to find other mechanisms to prevent and reduce the occurance of hate speech to the lowest possible level. All forms of media, whether online or offline, can play crucial role both in disseminating and combating hate speech. The aim of this paper is to show that the current system is insufficient and to introduce hate speech prevention means, other than legal, because hate spech is not penalized with the criminal law and it is violating the feelings and dignity of people.