hate speech
DESCRIPTION
Hate Speech. LLM CyberCrime 26 March 2012. National differences. Huge differences in what forms of expression are tolerated ... ... even if we confine ourselves to western nations Uniformity cannot really be expected - co-operation is rare. National differences. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Hate Speech Hate Speech
LLM CyberCrime
26 March 2012
2
National National differencesdifferences
Huge differences in what forms of expression are tolerated ...
... even if we confine ourselves to western nations
Uniformity cannot really be expected - co-operation is rare
3
National National differencesdifferences
But the differences are not simply between nations, they are also within them
Different standards within communities, and across communities
Various traditional ways of moderating these differences
4
5
6
‘‘Hate Speech’Hate Speech’
7
1. International Conventions1. International Conventions
8
International Convention on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD, Racial Discrimination (ICERD, 1965)1965)
“States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations
which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote
racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures
designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination …”
(article 4)
9
ICERD art 4 ICERD art 4 continuedcontinued“… (a) Shall declare as an offence punishable by
law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law; …”
10Ratification of ICERD
11
Effect of the InternetEffect of the Internet Increased relevance of
international influences:Ease of communicationEscape to other jurisdictionsA global racist movement (Perry and Olsson (2009) 19 Info & Comms Tech Law 185)?
12
Reservations - USReservations - US
13
Reservations - Reservations - IrelandIreland
14
The Cybercrime The Cybercrime ConventionConvention
Text agreed at Budapest 23 November 2001
Now signed by 46 nations (including Canada, Japan, South Africa and the US)
30 nations have ratified it
15
Cybercrime Cybercrime ConventionConvention
Main provisions Definitions of major offences against or involving computer systems
Procedural provisions on evidence and international police co-operation
16
Cybercrime Cybercrime ConventionConvention
Much dispute as to its merits Many suggested clauses were abandoned as unacceptable to the US
The Convention is very weak on protection of civil liberties
17
A difference of opinionA difference of opinion All Western democracies have offences of stirring up racial hatred ...
... but the matter is approached in different ways
In particular, glorification of Nazi Germany is treated very differently
18
Cybercrime Cybercrime ConventionConvention
Reference to racist incitement was deliberately omitted, when it became clear that no conceivable draft would satisfy the US and France
There is a separate additional protocol on these matters
19
Additional Protocol Additional Protocol art 2art 2
For the purposes of this Protocol:
"racist and xenophobic material" means any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors.
20
Additional Protocol art Additional Protocol art 6.16.1
... distributing or otherwise making available, through a
computer system to the public, material which
denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or
crimes against humanity ...
21
Unacceptability to some Unacceptability to some nationsnations
Ireland and the UK have not signed
Of non-European parties, only Canada has signed
The US have based their refusal squarely on US constitutional law
22
EU Framework decision of 19 April EU Framework decision of 19 April 20072007
The following will be punishable in all EU member states:
Publicly inciting to violence or hatred, even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
But member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
23
On the (rather diverse) picture in Europe generally,
see:
Pech, “The law of holocaust denial in Europe” (2009)
ssrn.com/abstract=1536078
24
2. Actual cases2. Actual cases
25
Methods of controlMethods of control
Issues:
•Liability of those posting material - “permissive intent”
•Enforcement – by individuals? (no presence needed for civil trial)
•Jurisdiction – Extradition within the EU
26
Actual casesActual casesToben case
Australian citizen Arrested in 1999 on a visit
to Germany Subsequent arrest in the
UK while in transit between the USA and Dubai (under European Arrest Warrant)
27
28
Pro- and anti- Pro- and anti- IslamIslam
Terrorism Act 2006 s. 1 (UK) “1(1) This section applies to a statement that is
likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism …”
“(3) [These statements] include every statement which (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances …”
29
30
UK – Irving v UK – Irving v LipstadtLipstadt
31
“The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”
([2000] EWHC QB 115, Gray J)
32
The Danish The Danish cartoons casecartoons case
On the merits of which see:
Kahn, “The Danish Cartoon controversy”
ssrn.com/abstract=1499947
33
34
Ireland?Ireland?
35
3. A US haven?3. A US haven?
36
The US havenThe US haven
More and more websites in the US …
May or may not be a real US connection
37
How far can US law How far can US law go?go?
“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press … ”
(1st amendment to the constitution)
38
Is the US truly a Is the US truly a “haven” for racists?“haven” for racists?
van Blarcum, “Internet hate speech” (2005) 62 Washington and Lee Law Review 781
Henry, “Beyond free speech” (2009) 18 Information and Communications Technology Law 235
39
Brandenburg v. OhioBrandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444 (1969)395 US 444 (1969)
“… the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
40
Remedies?Remedies? “Imminent lawless action” Virginia v. Black 538 US 343
(2003) Locating an actual victim of a
particular utterance (and see the recent Matthew Shephard Act (signed 28 October 2009)
Violating the rights of particular people
Tort of emotional distress?
41
Potential for conflict Potential for conflict of jurisdictions of jurisdictions
E.g. US v UK:
R v Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65
42
L’affaire “Yahoo!”L’affaire “Yahoo!” Sale of various Nazi medals from Yahoo!’s servers
This included yahoo.com, yahoo.fr and yahoo.de
Questionable whether it complied with Yahoo!’s own guidelines
43
Google’s terms of Google’s terms of useuse
44
Dramatis PersonaeDramatis Personae1. Yahoo! Inc (based in California)
2. Yahoo! France (based in Paris)
3. La Ligue Contre le Racism et l’Antisemitisme (LICRA)
4. L’Amicale des Deportes d’Auschwitz
45
5 April 20005 April 2000 LICRA commence
proceedings against both Yahoo!s
Process is served on Yahoo! Inc in California
Yahoo! Inc is ordered to make access to the medals from France impossible
46
22 November 200022 November 2000
The order is made final Arguments based on the 1st
amendment are rejected Yahoo! Inc is ordered to
identify site users as best it could, and bar the French ones
Fine on Yahoo! Inc of 10,000 fr per day for non-compliance
47
21 December 200021 December 2000
Yahoo! Inc sue LICRA in a California Federal Court
They seek a declaration that an attempt to enforce the penalty would be invalid as infringing their 1st amendment rights
48
7 November 20017 November 2001 Judge Fogel holds for Yahoo! Inc
Free speech in the US by US citizens is protected by the 1st amendment ...
... even if it can be “heard” in France
49
26 February 200226 February 2002 L’Amicale des Deportes
d’Auschwitz prosecutes Tim Koogle, CEO of Yahoo! Inc, for “justifying war crimes”
Defences based on lack of jurisdiction are rapidly rejected
50
11 February 200311 February 2003 The Tribunal Correctionnel de Paris acquits Koogle
The court notes that Koogle had done nothing to portray Nazism in a favourable light
The prosecution appeals further, but fails
51
23 August 200423 August 2004 The 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals reverses Judge Fogel’s ruling
Unless attempts were made to enforce the French ruling, no issue arose
The extent of Yahoo’s 1st amendment rights would be determined when relevant
52
10 February 200510 February 2005 A differently-constituted 9th Circuit Court is persuaded that the earlier judgment was erroneous
A rehearing of the case is ordered
53
12 January 200612 January 2006 The newly-constituted court rules (by a majority) that they had no jurisdiction
Some judges relied on territorial jurisdiction, others lack of ripeness
54
30 May 200630 May 2006
The US Supreme Court denies cert.
55
Conclusions: (i) Conclusions: (i) ValuesValues
It is hard to accuse either set of courts of unreasonable disregard for the other
Neither used their powers to the limit
56
Conclusions: (ii) Conclusions: (ii) SpeedSpeed
It is now 10 years since the behaviour complained of ...
... and yet neither set of courts has ruled very clearly on the key issues in the case
A lot has happened in the interim!
57
4. Conclusions4. Conclusions
58
The inevitability of The inevitability of international international collaborationcollaboration
… both by law-enforcers and by law-breakers
Perry and Olsson, “Cyberhate” (2009) 18 Information and Communications Technology Law 185
59
Use of incohate Use of incohate offences?offences?
Guichard, “Hate crimes in cyberspace” (2009) 18 Information and Communications Technology Law 201
60
Is the Internet Is the Internet really different?really different?
Harris et al, “Truth, law and hate” (2009) 18 Information and Communications Technology Law 155
61
RemediesRemediesBlocking foreign sites? Greater and greater sophistication in identifying the physical location of certain IP addresses
A significant but imperfect solution
62
RemediesRemediesCo-operation with foreign ISPs
US federal law requires free speech, not that ISPs co-operate in making free speech available
Voluntary agreement by ISPs is certainly an option
63
RemediesRemedies
Extradition in “true threat” cases
The limits of “free speech” protection yet to be determined
64
But do we want to But do we want to encourage state encourage state
control?control? Very hard to cut down on
state control once it is in place … because critics of the regime will already be labelled as criminals
The virtues of free speech
65