THE UN has called on governments and companies to move away from “standardless policies and inconsistent enforcement” and to align their laws and practices against hate speech with International Human Rights Law. The prevalence of online hate poses challenges to everyone, first and foremost the marginalised individuals who are its principal targets. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye reinforced legal standards to combat online hate. Unfortunately, States and Companies are failing to prevent hate speech from becoming the next “fake news”, an ambiguous and politicised term subject to governmental abuse and company discretion.
Online hate is no less harmful because it is online. To the contrary, online hate, with the speed and reach of its dissemination, can incite grave offline harm and nearly always aims to silence others. The question is not whether to address such abuse. It is how to do so in a way that respects the rights everyone enjoys. In a report, presented to the UN General Assembly on Monday, Kaye urged that states meet their obligations by turning to key human rights treaties and the leading interpretations of human rights law by the Human Rights Committee and the 2013 Rabat Plan of Action.
On the other hand, many governments use “hate speech” to restrict legitimate expression under the guise of “blasphemy” or fail to define and enforce hate speech rules according to Human Rights Law’s rigorous standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, and legitimacy. Governments and the public have legitimate concerns about online hate. However, new laws that impose liability on Companies are failing basic standards, increasing the power of those same private actors over public norms, and risking undermining free expression and public accountability.
Where press has to live in fear, the social media acquire special importance for news and views. We understand the UN concern about the wrong policies and inconsistent application. Social media is a modern tool to express people’s views and it has brought significant change in the sphere of media. We have to learn its implication. Gagging the press freedom is not the right way to make social media socially responsible. Where free expression is restricted people believe in social media and hate speeches get easy access. So the implications of hate speeches in social media depend also on social circumstances.
Online hate is no less harmful because it is online. To the contrary, online hate, with the speed and reach of its dissemination, can incite grave offline harm and nearly always aims to silence others. The question is not whether to address such abuse. It is how to do so in a way that respects the rights everyone enjoys. In a report, presented to the UN General Assembly on Monday, Kaye urged that states meet their obligations by turning to key human rights treaties and the leading interpretations of human rights law by the Human Rights Committee and the 2013 Rabat Plan of Action.
On the other hand, many governments use “hate speech” to restrict legitimate expression under the guise of “blasphemy” or fail to define and enforce hate speech rules according to Human Rights Law’s rigorous standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, and legitimacy. Governments and the public have legitimate concerns about online hate. However, new laws that impose liability on Companies are failing basic standards, increasing the power of those same private actors over public norms, and risking undermining free expression and public accountability.
Where press has to live in fear, the social media acquire special importance for news and views. We understand the UN concern about the wrong policies and inconsistent application. Social media is a modern tool to express people’s views and it has brought significant change in the sphere of media. We have to learn its implication. Gagging the press freedom is not the right way to make social media socially responsible. Where free expression is restricted people believe in social media and hate speeches get easy access. So the implications of hate speeches in social media depend also on social circumstances.
