Hate Speech And Freedom Of Expression Pdf

  • and pdf
  • Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:46:20 AM
  • 1 comment
hate speech and freedom of expression pdf

File Name: hate speech and dom of expression .zip
Size: 18427Kb
Published: 20.05.2021

This entry explores the topic of free speech.

Freedom of speech

For years, social media platforms have been perceived as a democratic gain, facilitating freedom of expression, easy access to a variety of information, and new means of public participation.

At the same time, social media have enabled the dissemination of illegal content and incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, fuelling several content regulation initiatives.

From the perspective of freedom of expression, this development embraces two challenges: first, private actors govern freedom of expression, without human rights safeguards; second, this privatised governance of human rights is encouraged and legitimised by a broad range of EU policy initiatives.

We analyse the abovementioned challenges through a human rights lens, which serves as the analytical framework for this article. Further, we suggest some strategies for moving forward, drawing on recent recommendations from the UN human rights system. For years, social media platforms such as Facebook have been perceived as a democratic gain, not least due to the potential of allowing everyone to exercise freedom of expression, including voicing opinions, reaching diverse audiences, sharing information from a variety of sources, locating likeminded people across borders, and mobilising around specific interests.

However, with the swift growth and intense use of social media, new challenges emerge. The widespread use of social media platforms has enabled the dissemination of illegal content, incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and a broad range of potentially harmful content.

All of these can have damaging consequences not only for the targeted individuals, but for public debate as well see Dangerous Speech Project, ; DIHR, , In response to these challenges, EU policymakers increasingly call upon social media platforms to regulate content. This policy development has led to a growing concern for the human rights implications of private actors governing the online public sphere.

From the perspective of freedom of expression, particularly two challenges are at stake. First, individual expression, public debate, and so forth are governed by private actors operating outside the direct reach of human rights law, placing freedom of expression in a vulnerable position.

Second, EU policy initiatives combatting illegal content on social media platforms encourage and legitimise this private regime of content regulation — without adequate human rights safeguards. Part of the human rights challenge with social media platforms like Facebook occurs because of their dual role as both a private company and a public space playing a pivotal role as access points to information. Facebook is not a media corporation with an editor-in-chief subject to media regulation; however, its widespread use makes it as powerful as traditional media companies in many cases.

Scholars have referred to Facebook as a public infrastructure or utility, essential for social and political participation in the twenty-first century and accessible for all Balkin ; Plantin et al.

While Facebook refers to itself as a global community, it is effectively governed by commercially defined rules and norms largely inaccessible to its community Gillespie, ; Klonick, ; Suzor, In this article, we analyse these challenges through the lens of human rights standards and suggest a way forward. This perspective in the study of internet policy is not new see, e.

Arguably, the EU governance model is one of several contrasted with, e. On that foundation, we next address the human rights framework and the regulatory challenges involved in protecting freedom of expression, as well as the boundaries of freedom of expression on social media platforms.

The analysis is informed by recent EU policy initiatives in the field of content regulation and by international human rights law, including soft law. We conclude with some recommendations for moving forward, drawing upon the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression David Kaye. In addition to general questions related to usage patterns and perceptions, the survey posed questions about participation in the online public debate, seeking concrete experiences of encounters with, for example, harassment and offensive behaviour when using Facebook.

The survey was internet-based and based on answers from 2, Danish Facebook users aged 18 and older. It focused exclusively on Facebook since it is the most commonly used social media platform by the Danish population DIHR, In fact, a recent study shows that 63 per cent of Danes use Facebook daily and it plays a vital role as a source of news and information, particularly among those aged 18—24 DR Medieforskning, To identify potential respondents, e-mail invitations were sent to those meeting the relevant criteria in the YouGov panel 3.

In order to ensure that the survey captured respondents who used Facebook actively, respondents had to have a Facebook profile and must have posted a comment on Facebook at some point. A comparison of the respondents with the Danish population in general indicates that the respondents are representative of the population when it comes to gender and age; however, there is a slight overrepresentation of both respondents aged 50—59 years and of those highly educated.

The growing use of social media platforms as forums for public debate implies new conditions — as well as challenges — for freedom of expression. On the one hand, the ease of sharing opinions with a broader public is an advancement for freedom of expression; on the other hand, the ease of expressing hostile and discriminating attitudes can deter others from freely expressing their views.

This duality is a recurring theme in the survey, according to which 48 per cent perceive social media to be a gain for freedom of expression. But the question remains: How representative and pluralistic is the public debate unfolding on Facebook? The findings also suggest that the tone of the debate has a significant chilling effect on civic engagement: 59 per cent refrain from posting a comment on Facebook because of the tone, suggesting a strong connection between the tone of the debate and self-censorship in public participation.

The fact that some refrain from voicing their opinion in online debates was seen as a problem for freedom of expression by 63 per cent of the respondents. But at the same time, 62 per cent found it important to safeguard freedom of expression despite offensive comments. Derogatory and offensive language was identified as the most prevalent type of offensive behaviour on Facebook, with half of the respondents observing this type of behaviour often or from time to time.

One out of five witnessed sexually offensive comments often or from time to time, and the same number witnessed threats against others often or from time to time. Women taking part in the public debate on Facebook experienced derogatory and offensive comments based on their gender three times as often as men; contrarily, men primarily experienced derogatory and offensive comments about their political opinions.

The survey also examined attitudes towards content moderation. This indicates that most users do not recognise content removal as an intervention in their freedom of expression — in fact, three out of four do not perceive it as a freedom of expression issue at all. The nature of these human rights implications is further addressed below. Human rights are legally codified norms applying to all human beings, irrespective of national borders. International human rights law obligates states to act in certain ways or refrain from certain acts in order to protect the human rights of individuals.

Since , UN resolutions have iterated that human rights, including freedom of expression, must be protected online as well as offline UNHRC, According to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR, , states must ensure an enabling environment for freedom of expression and protect the exercise thereof para.

Likewise, the Covenant obliges states to implement and enforce appropriate and effective measures to prevent and protect against acts of discrimination on several grounds, including sex, race, colour, descent, or national origin article 2, para.

In recent years, a variety of initiatives have been introduced providing guidance to companies for ensuring compliance with human rights, most notably the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in According to these Guiding Principles, any business entity has a responsibility to respect human rights. As part of this, they must avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and seek to prevent or mitigate such impacts directly linked to their operations, products, or services by their business relationships — even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

Moreover, the Guiding Principles stipulate that businesses should be prepared to communicate how they address their human rights impacts externally, particularly when concerns are raised by, or on behalf of, affected stakeholders. While the Guiding Principles are nonbinding, the overwhelming role of social media companies in public life globally provides a strong argument for their adoption and implementation Kaye, Since the Guiding Principles are the prevailing and minimum standard for defining and assessing the responsibility of social media platforms in relation to human rights, it is important to bear in mind the expectations to companies highlighted by these principles.

Drawing on Kaye : para. We return to the governance themes below, but first we take a closer look at some of the challenges that occur when trying to determine the human rights impact of social media platforms. A growing awareness exists, however, that the digital domain also entails negative human rights implications and might facilitate new instances of violence, hate, and discrimination. The fact that social media platforms provide modalities for a broad range of processes related to public life and participation implies that there are additional intersections between business activities and human rights other than the traditionally well-known examples, such as human rights harm related to working conditions or impact on a local community.

In addition to having obligations towards their employees and the communities in which they operate, companies may negatively affect the human rights of billions of users as part of the services and platforms they provide BSR, This reality presents significant challenges for clarifying the human rights responsibilities of these companies.

While they may contribute to a range of more well-known human rights abuses, the reach and impact on their users worldwide is unique to the sector. As mentioned above, states incur responsibility not only for human rights abuses inflicted by themselves, but also those caused by third parties which they fail to prevent, punish, and remediate. In relation to freedom of expression, state action has traditionally been an essential element of alleged human rights violations.

Legally speaking, the relationship between the platform and the user is governed by the terms of service contract law , rather than human rights law. Effectively, private actors with strong human rights impacts steer in the soft regime of guidelines and corporate social responsibility.

The prevailing industry initiative is the Global Network Initiative GNI , established in to guide companies when states make requests that may violate international human rights standards of freedom of expression and privacy Maclay, As part of this effort, the companies publish annual transparency reports in which they reveal aggregate numbers about state requests for interference in user communication. Moreover, the participating companies commit to undergo periodic assessment by an independent third party to evaluate their compliance with the GNI principles these assessments are not publicly available except for a summary report.

The focus on state overreach is not surprising, as these cases have attracted much attention in public debate. Moreover, the emphasis on state overreach provides the company with an element of discretion when deciding which internal processes to include or exclude in its human rights impact assessment.

In the following, state initiatives aiming to remove content from the online domain are referred to as content regulation Cooke, ; Frydman et al. While content regulation is largely concerned with removal of illegal content — thus enforcing the boundaries for freedom of expression — content moderation typically involves both legal and illegal content, as defined by companies in their terms of service.

Since human rights law provides legal standards for the former, and limited guidance for the latter, the distinction is important to understand. Moreover, as you shall see below, the two are increasingly blurred. However, it has gained new momentum recently, not least as a state response to counter illegal content on social media platforms. The exemption from intermediary liability is conditioned on a the provider having no actual knowledge of illegal activity or b the provider, when obtaining such knowledge, acting expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information.

II, point The combination of a limited liability regime and the call for proactive measures effectively demands social media companies to operate within a blurred mix of expectations and demands. On the one hand, they are expected not to interfere with content and to keep their status as mere conduit, caching, or host; on the other hand, they are expected to proactively detect, identify, and remove content we shall return to this below.

The agreement includes the development of internal procedures to guarantee that the companies review notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content if necessary. Currently, there is no uniform definition of what constitutes hate speech around the world, and the Framework Decision has been criticised for lack of compliance with international standards on freedom of expression, as pointed out by the UK-based organisation ARTICLE 19 Since its adoption, the Code of Conduct has been supplemented with various national initiatives.

The Act obliges owners of social media platforms with more than two million German users to remove illegal content within 24 hours or risk sanctions with fines up to 50 million euros. UK, Likewise, proactive measures such as upload filters would enable the blocking of content without any form of due process even before it is published Kaye et al. Moreover, such proactive measures seem to conflict with the obligations of the Directive on Electronic Commerce — to not interfere with content nor monitor it EC, Kaye et al.

However, as such recitals are not binding, this may lead to legal uncertainty, impacting both platforms and individuals, and potentially undermining the protection of human rights Kaye et al. In practice, they are asked to navigate between three set of norms. And third, conducting human rights impact assessments to mitigate negative human rights impacts, as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

This zone of unclear expectations, norms, and liability provisions is partly due to the character of the online domain. With private companies in control of social media platforms, it is no surprise that EU regulators and member states have turned to these actors to regulate content, as it is outside their direct sphere of control.

Looking through the prism of the right to freedom of expression, however, this practice is problematic and calls for standards from EU regulators to ensure that fundamental rights are protected when regulatory action is delegated to private actors. In the absence of such standards, the legal grey-zone presented by regulation and codes of conduct are transposed to national level in the EU member states. In recent years, the content moderation practices of social media companies increasingly evoke attention.

Social media companies such as Facebook are subject to continuous criticism for not doing enough in terms of policing their platforms, for example in relation to hate speech, and for doing too much, such as removing legal content.

Such standards are commonly drafted in terms that lack sufficient clarity and fail to provide adequate guidance on the circumstances under which content may be blocked, removed or restricted, or access to a service may be restricted or terminated, thereby falling short of the legality requirement under international human rights law.

As such, a diverse mix of legal and non-legal standards guide the numerous decisions taken on content each day.

Does freedom of speech include hate speech?

Globally, there has been a resurgence of discriminatory and hateful speech in response to various social and political upheavals. While most democracies, such as South Africa and Kenya, provide for freedom of expression, they place limitations on this right to promote social cohesion and protect other fundamental rights — namely the right to equality and the right to dignity. The choice to criminalise speech that falls outside the bounds of protected speech is less widely applied. This is primarily because the use of criminal sanction to prevent hate speech is seen as being in direct contradiction to the freedom of expression and other rights. In particular, the use of criminal sanction is examined, and the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are explored.

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. Log In Sign Up. Download Free PDF. Does freedom of speech include hate speech?


free speech, hate speech, autonomy, democracy, defamation. Abstract Why think that the moral right to freedom of expression protects hate speech? content/uploads//01/Dangerous-Speech-Guidelines-Benesch-January​.pdf.


South Africa and Kenya’s Legislative Measures to Prevent Hate Speech

For years, social media platforms have been perceived as a democratic gain, facilitating freedom of expression, easy access to a variety of information, and new means of public participation. At the same time, social media have enabled the dissemination of illegal content and incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, fuelling several content regulation initiatives. From the perspective of freedom of expression, this development embraces two challenges: first, private actors govern freedom of expression, without human rights safeguards; second, this privatised governance of human rights is encouraged and legitimised by a broad range of EU policy initiatives.

Some free speech advocates prefer an open marketplace of ideas, where no expression is restricted. They consider that the best response to harmful speech is through debate that lets different ideas freely challenge it. Others argue that restrictions on hate speech are vital to the protection of minority communities from the harm that such speech causes.

Freedom of speech [2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship , or legal sanction from the government. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Introduction

Информация, которую он выдал. Если Стратмор получил от Следопыта информацию, значит, тот работал. Она оказалась бессмысленной, потому что он ввел задание в неверной последовательности, но ведь Следопыт работал. Но Сьюзан тут же сообразила, что могла быть еще одна причина отключения Следопыта. Внутренние ошибки программы не являлись единственными причинами сбоя, потому что иногда в действие вступали внешние силы - скачки напряжения, попавшие на платы частички пыли, повреждение проводов. Поскольку за техникой Третьего узла следили самым тщательным образом, она даже не рассматривала такую возможность.

У тебя скверный вкус на ювелирные побрякушки. - Ты уверен, что его никто не купил. - Да вы все спятили. Это за четыреста-то баксов. Я сказал ей, что даю пятьдесят, но она хотела. Ей надо было выкупить билет на самолет - если найдется свободное место перед вылетом.

 Ключ находится в Испании, - еле слышно произнесла Сьюзан, и все повернулись к. Это были ее первые слова за очень долгое время. Сьюзан подняла голову. Глаза ее были затуманены. - Танкадо успел отдать его за мгновение до смерти.

Это случилось во время поездки на уик-энд в Смоки-Маунтинс. Они лежали на широкой кровати под балдахином в Стоун-Мэнор.

Сирены по-прежнему выли. Пять секунд. Шесть секунд. - Утечка информации. - Никаких изменений.

Сьюзан отказывалась что-либо понимать. Она была абсолютно уверена, что не вводила такой команды - во всяком случае, намеренно. Подумала, что, может быть, спутала последовательность нажатия клавиш. Немыслимо, - подумала. Согласно информации, появившейся в окне, команда была подана менее двадцати минут .

1 Comments

  1. MichГЁle L. 29.05.2021 at 10:30

    John bevere undercover pdf free download pdf refrigeration and air conditioning book