Hate Speech on the Internet

Ioannis IglezakisAssociate Professor,

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Dissemination of hate speech online

The Internet allows extremists and haters easier access to an expectedly big audience.

In 2011 more than 14,000 problematic websites, forums, blogs, social media postings

Definition of Hate Speech

[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]

It covers all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.

International & EU Law Additional Protocol to the Convention on

Cybercrime concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems.

EU Joint Action concerning action to combat and xenophobia (96/443/JHA)

EU Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law

Additional ProtocolMeasures to be taken at national level

Article 3 – Dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems

Article 4 – Racist and xenophobic motivated threat

Article 5 – Racist and xenophobic motivated insult

Article 6 –Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

EU Legal Acts Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning

action to combat and xenophobia (96/443/JHA)

Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law ---> EU Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the criminalization of the following acts:

Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA

(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred 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;

(b) the commission of an act referred to in point (a) by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material;

(c) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as;

(d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the above crimes when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Conflict with constitutional rights ECHR (Gündüz v. Turkey): it may be

considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, provided that any “formalities”, “conditions”, “restrictions” or “penalties” imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued

Conflicts The importance of the Internet as

a means to promote freedom of speech

ECHR case Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey

case Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland

Conclusion the prohibition and penalization of

hate speech on the Internet should be without prejudice to the right of freedom of expression

legal measures against hate speech may not be sufficient -> collaboration with ISPs & technical measures