internet freedom and online hate speech

Transcription

INTERNET
FREEDOM
AND ONLINE
HATE SPEECH:
MEDIA POLICY AND
THE INTERNET IN
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
2014 / Sarajevo
USAID's Strengthening Independent Media (SIM)
Project in Bosnia-Herzegovina
2
Civic Media Fellowship Program
INTERNET FREEDOM AND ONLINE HATE SPEECH:
MEDIA POLICY AND THE INTERNET IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
Title: INTERNET FREEDOM AND ONLINE HATE SPEECH:
Publisher: INTERNEWS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, Sarajevo,
Hamdije Kreševljakovića 50, 71000 Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
www.internews.ba
Author: Lejla TURČILO
Design: Mersel BUJAK
Lay out: Mensur MUZUROVIĆ
USAID’s Strengthening Independent Media (SIM) Project in Bosnia-Herzegovina
This paper is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of Internews, USAID or the United States Government.
3
INTERNET FREEDOM AND
ONLINE HATE SPEECH:
ABSTRACT
This paper offers an exploration of the current debate surrounding the regulation of online hate speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I begin by outlining the two main narratives dominating the state, public and academic
debate around online hate speech in Bosnia - Herzegovina. I argue that in the context of a post-war society in
transition, Internet freedom is especially relevant to the concept of democracy, tolerance and societal and political pluralism. I then raise the question of who should regulate online hate speech and how, focusing on whether
there is a need to balance freedom of the media and expression with the need to curb hate speech. Drawing on
international definitions of hate speech, I explore the current lack of legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
addition to nascent studies on online hate speech conducted by local organizations. I outline four central issues
plaguing policy and legislation on online hate speech in the country: the absence of a concrete definition of hate
speech agreed upon by all stakeholders; the question of where the line lies between freedom of expression and
hate speech in the online sphere; if and how state intervention is legitimate or necessary in online hate speech
regulation; and the importance of solid, rigorous online research methodologies. I conclude by emphasizing the
role of a multi-stakeholder approach and the importance of “media literacy” among local communities.
4
THE INTERNET AS A “FREE” MEDIUM:
DOMINANT NARRATIVES AND DEBATES IN B-H ON
INTERNET REGULATION
Is the Internet a free medium? And what does “free medium” mean? Free of what kind of influences? The usual debate
regarding the freedom of the Internet centers on defining the Internet as a medium free of state influences and “traditional” norms. It also embraces a definition of freedom that serves to provide equal opportunities of access and expression to all users. “The Internet as medium is different from all other media. Traditional media offer content, while the
Internet demands from users to make content on their own, from an unlimited number of sources that are available to
them” (Štambuk, 1999:41). Defining the medium in this way, however, is somewhat naïve and reminiscent of the AAA
Paradigm (Anything, Anywhere, Anytime) (Balle, 1997:75). While the Internet does offer a platform for users for the creation and sharing ideas and the promotion of activism, it is also a “new battlefield of different interests, viewpoints and
ideas” (Samoriski, 2012:14). Other perspectives underline the importance of “free Internet,” whereby freedom could
(and should) entail an “Internet free of deviant behavior, such as hate speech”.1 As Jelenka Voćkić Avdagić writes, “The
Internet lacks leadership and good quality control” (Voćkić-Avdagić, 2002:10). Implicit in this statement is that there
should be some form of “rules” that should prevent deviant behavior online. Additionally, in the context of post-war
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Internet freedom is especially relevant to the concept of pluralism. The diversity of available viewpoints, or the prevention of the domination of select sources on the public, is what makes the Internet so important part
of contemporary society and an interesting field for media research and media policy.
In the case of B&H, two narratives dominate the debate around Internet freedom. The first, promoted for example by
internet activists, advocates the idea that online freedom should be preserved unconditionally, regardless of any negative trends (such as hate speech, trolling etc.) , with the exception of cases subject to criminal law, for example. Based
on the notion that attempts to control negative trends online could slide into the control of free flow of information,
this narrative argues that only unregulated Internet and its popular modes of usage can lead to more informed public.
The second narrative, adopted by the B&H Press Council, argues that the damage resulting from any misuse of the Internet outweighs the benefits afforded by total online freedom and necessitates control, including state intervention.
This narrative is based on the idea that the unlimited Internet freedom provides a space for hate speech, positioning the
Internet as a potentially dangerous environment not only in terms of danger for (especially young) individuals, but also
in terms of danger for democracy, which is in B&H still in development. In so-called young democracies, such as B&H, this
narrative is used to legitimize state intervention in the control of the Internet; in fact, even the concept of media literacy
is frequently based on this “danger-related discourse”. Ultimately, then, the question remains: who should regulate online hate speech, and how? This question can be further divided into two specific axes:
a. Where is the balance between unlimited media freedom and the potential damage resulting from that
unlimited freedom (in other words, Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”: should we tolerate what should not be
tolerated? (Popper, 1996:84)); and
b. Who benefits most from this freedom, in light of the fact that the Internet has the potential to expand the
public service goal and reach of a free (traditional) press?
The final question remains: what kind of media policy regarding online hate speech does Bosnia-Herzegovina need?
And how could freedom of expression be promoted without opening an unregulated space for voices of hate?
1
This argument is, for example, promoted by the B&H Press Council: http://www.vzs.ba
5
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA AS
POST-WAR AND TRANSITIONAL SOCIETY
Freedom of expression, recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
is one of the basic pillars of every democratic society. It entails the freedom to circulate information and articulate
opinion without fear of punishment or reprisal.
As jurist Vesna Alaburić writes: “This is one of the most important rights in the index of all other human rights and
freedoms. Freedom of expression is not only condition sine qua non of the intellectual and spiritual development of
every individual as person, but it is a basic precondition for survival of all of them as a democratic community.” (Coliver et al, 1998:6)
Alaburić points out that freedom of expression is closely tied to the public right “to know,” that is, to be informed.
In that context, the role of both online and offline media is crucial: “Media enable public debate on public good, by
mediating various information, ideas, opinions, political options etc. They are also watchdogs of democracy which
shape the public opinion and create critical public” (Coliver et al, 1998:8).
The concept of and battle for freedom of expression, of course, predates the rise of the Internet. English philosopher
John Stuart Mill (1985:83) was among the first to articulate freedom of expression as not only an individual right
to views and opinions, but a community right as well. Freedom of expression is thus proportional to the level of democracy of the society and closely related to free media, which are not only free but obliged to provide citizens with
information they need in order to be able to be functional in the society.
Bosnia-Herzegovina has signed all international conventions on human rights and incorporated them in Annex IV of
the Dayton Agreement. Article II of the Constitution of B&H guarantees the right to freedom of expression and entity constitutions are in accordance to the Constitution of B&H in all aspects, including freedom of speech. After the
adoption of the Constitution of B&H, however, political players failed to create a legal framework that would guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of media. This led the Office of the High Representation, created under
the Dayton Agreement, to impose the Decision on Freedom of Information in 1999. Freedom of expression is also
guaranteed by B&H’s Law on Communication. (Official Gazette of B&H, 31/03)
This highlights a longstanding tension in the case of freedom of expression in B&H. Many analysts in the field of law
and communication agree that the country has excellent normative regulations when it comes to the media sphere;
the problem remains, however, the implementation of these regulations. Too often, laws are not implemented properly or even not implemented at all. A case in point is the Law on Public Broadcasting System of B&H, which in 2005
theoretically established the Public Broadcasters Corporation, which has yet to see the light of day.
6
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION VS HATE SPEECH:
NEGOTIATING TENSIONS IN DIGITAL ERA
The presence of hate speech in general public discourse is one of the most direct indicators of a democratically weak
society. Press Council in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2012 received 52 complaints by citizens on hate speech. In 2013. there
were 83 complaints to the Press Council2 by citizens. In 2012-2013 Media Center Sarajevo3 organized a research on
hate speech in media in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which served as a starting point for debates and seminars throughout
the region on hate speech. Sanela Hodžić, coordinator of the research, said in the conference “Online Hate Speech
in South-Eastern Europe: The Role and Responsibility of Media” in October 2013 (presenting results of the research)
that it has been concluded that the hate speech has been used mainly by politicians, while journalists mainly transmitted and disseminated such speech in their media.4 This proves that it is not just journalists, or the press, who surface as protagonists of hate speech; non-journalists5 “justify” their use of hate speech by framing it as an exercise in
freedom of speech and expression. Elsewhere, press reports critical of certain political figures is interpreted as hate
speech and has led to requests by these figures for the prosecution of the journalists or authors in question. This
underlines the importance of defining hate speech and outlining how it relates to and is distinguishable from the
legitimate right to freedom of speech and expression in media reports.
In the absence of a precise definition, in practice the European Court of Human Rights has employed the term “hate
speech” to describe forms of expressions that disseminate, provoke, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance,
including religious intolerance. Alaburić (in Coliver et al, 1998:6), meanwhile, defines hate speech as “aggressive speech
that disseminates hatred, intolerance, and calls for violence against a group of people that can be identified by race, national or ethnic origin, skin color, religion, gender or some other features.” In its most general sense, then, hate speech
can be defined as an expression containing messages of hatred or intolerance to a racial, national, ethnic or religious
group or individual members of that group. Hate speech has also recently spread to intolerance of gender and sexual
orientation, as well as intolerance of different political opinions and national and social status.
The essential point of reference in defining hate speech is, in fact, a contextual one. More specifically, the essential determinant of hate speech definition is the actual intention behind messages that disseminate hate speech directly or indirectly.
UN Human Rights Committee and European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance list several aspects that could help
determine hate speech in the public discourse: purpose of the statement, content of the statement, context of the statement
(how influential is the author of the statement towards the public), will sanctions seriously damage free speech6
As mentioned earlier, hate speech in the context of B&H is often justified by drawing on the framework of freedom
of speech. However, through media education and media literacy programs aimed at general population, all actors
of society should clearly state (and teach) that freedom of speech does not include the right to hate speech. Another
distinction that is crucial is the suppression of hate speech versus the suppression of free speech; in other words,
media institutions, among others, must point out an increasing tendency among the political elites of weak democracies and non-democratic states to censor or censure alternative opinions under the guise of curbing hate speech. The
Manual on Hate Speech issued by the Council of Europe states that “there is need in European societies that are mutually different in terms of culture to harmonize the Right to freedom of speech with other rights, such as the Right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and these rights occasionally compete with one another.”7
In 2012, BH Novinari, the association of journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, conducted a media monitoring study in
http://www.vzs.ba Visited on January, 10, 2014.
Media Center Sarajevo is an NGO that supports development of free media and does media research and training for journalism studednts and media professionals
(http://www.media.ba)
4
http://www.vijesti.ba/vijesti/bih/172655-Govor-mrznje-medijima-najcesce-proizvode-politicari.html Visited on December, 20, 2013.
5
Such as political leaders and other public figures
6
More detailed legal explanation of this in Sali-Terzić S. (2013). International Standards of Human Rights and Legal Framework in B&H: http://edukacija.vzs.ba/images/coe/pdfs/
Govor%20mrznje_%20Ljudskopravaski%20aspekt,%20Sevima%20Sali%20Terzic.pdf Visited on January 15, 2014.
7
http://www.coe.ba/web2/en/dokumenti/cat_view/36-coe-general-documents--coe-optidokumenti/116 publications--publikacije.html Visited on January 15, 2014.
2
3
7
association with the Press Council and Communication Regulatory Agency of B&H.8 This study looked at hate speech
in 30 media outlets (10 print, 7 broadcast and 13 online), analyzing a total of 29247 articles in print media, 15512
online media articles and 2052 television programs.9
Monitoring defined the phenomenon of hate speech in a larger sense, which does not only imply an open call for
violence, but it also includes some other, subtler forms of expressing animosities towards the others, towards those
that are different, towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the protagonists of public life in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Central research question was: to what extent is hate speech present in the mass media products (the
articles and reports in print and broadcast media and on web portals in Bosnia - Herzegovina), and what is the position
of mass media in regards to hate speech (do the mass media themselves produce hate speech or do they just transmit
it from other domains, and if so, what is the position of journalists in regards to the source of the hate speech and the
hate speech itself, or more specifically, how do the journalists address the hate speech in their reports and articles).
Scientific goal of this research/monitoring was to obtain objective indicators of the level of hate speech in mass media
in Bosnia and Herzegovina through quantitative and qualitative method of content analysis, discoursive and contextual
analysis, as well as point out to the cases/examples of hate speech and unprofessional reporting in B&H media.
Quantitative and qualitative method of content analysis was used in order to collect statistical indicators of the presence of hate speech and other forms of unprofessional reporting in print, broadcast and online media. Instead of analyzing individual mass media and the level of their professionalism, the research/monitoring was aimed at identifying
trends in mass media scene in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and for this purpose discoursive analysis of the media articles and
contributions content was used.
In order to analyze a largest possible number of individual media “cases” as objectively as possible, such cases were
analyzed in a larger media context: in the context of the hate speech actors (who was using the hate speech: a journalist or a person that a journalist was reporting about), in the context of arguments that were presented in media
reporting both by a journalist and actors of the story, and in the context of a position that journalist was taking in
relation to the story actor and his/her usage of hate speech.
The most direct examples of hate speech in online media articles were found in the comments sections. Hate speech,
inappropriate language, discrimination or denial of the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina were in most cases
present in titles of articles, usually quoting politicians who used such hate speech, which leads to a conclusion that
web portals pursued sensationalism in order to attract the attention of readers through headlines containing hate
speech. Some media put the headlines that have connotations of insult, prejudice and stereotype in quotation marks,
as some sort of demonstration that media are distancing themselves from such connotations. This, however, does
not alter the fact that such headlines still reinforce stereotypes toward certain individuals and groups (a headline
at ‘denvnik.ba’: ‘Ciganluk’ (“Gypsy business”) Sejdić: Proposal of SDP and HDZ is unacceptable, as it reinforces ethnic
division of Bosnia and Herzegovina”10
In general, we may say that during the last election campaign in B&H11, most inappropriate speech found on online
portals came from the politicians themselves and were directed at their political rivals.12. In the period after the election campaign, hate speech took a different form. While it was still the politicians who used hate speech, discrimination and various denial of both the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of genocide took central place in the
statements of political leaders, especially politicians from Republika Srpska, or the Bosnian Serb Republic. Most of
the articles penned by these leaders also resulted in a plethora of hate speech by user comments online. Editors and
webmasters did not remove these comments from their online portals. Yet they were not found responsible for the
http://english.bhnovinari.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452%3Afinal-report-of-media-monitoring-the-hate-speech-with-focus-on-pre-election-campaign&catid
=66%3Aresearch&Itemid=234&lang=en Visited on Jaunary 20, 2014.
9
This paper presents some of the results of the monitoring, with the approval from the Association BH Novinari
10
http://www.sutra.ba/novost/69626/CIGANLUK-Sejdic-fasistoidni-naslov-portala-Dnevnik.ba Visited on January 20, 2014.
11
Local elections in 2012.
12
While examples of such speech were not analyzed thoroughly and in detail in the BH Novinari study, they were identified as “problematic”.
8
8
hate speech on their sites, according to the report by BH Novinari: “However, given that the position of the journalist
and the portal is not clearly stated in the portal, the editors of the monitored portals cannot be accused of violating
professional codes”13. On the other hand, it can be argued that despite the fact these online media outlets tried to
disassociate themselves from statements containing hidden or direct hate speech and refrained from expressing
their position regarding the comments, they nevertheless took no measures to prevent hate speech in the comments
section – the one section editors have redactive control over.
It should also be noted that articles which do not in themselves contain or promote hate speech may receive comments containing the worst cases of such speech. Report by BH Novinari has listed some of them, but other research
came to the same conclusion: that comments of Internet users are the most problematic part of online media content
when it comes to hate speech. In its Report on Hate Speech in Media in Bosnia-Herzegovina14, the Sarajevo Open Center15 outlines cases of hate speech in comments on articles on rights of B&H’s LGBT population. One such example is
the comments posted to klix.ba under an article entitled “LGBT Population Asks for Their Rights,” where some users
commented that individuals who identified as LGBT were sick, going as far as to call for their murder. Some users
went as far as to post pictures and private data of LGBT activists, calling for violence against them. Activists reported
the case to police and the investigation is still underway16.
Comments on web portals, however, are not the only form of hate speech surfacing online in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Facebook is very popular platform for B&H Internet users, with an estimated 30.53% of the population active on the social
networking site17. Facebook groups promoting hate speech have also made their way into the public realm, including
groups such as “Nož, žica, Srebrenica” (“Knife, Wire, Srebrenica”), aimed at provoking the victims of war crimes in Srebrenica, and “Zaustavimo Paradu pedera u Sarajevu, 1. maj 2014” (“Stop the Gay Parade in Sarajevo, May 1, 2014”), which
calls for violence against members of the LGBT community. Many such pages have been closed after being reported to
Facebook.
The studies by BH Novinari and the Sarajevo Open Center offer a glimpse into the current state of online hate speech.
Such studies are also important as they stand to serve as a major educational site to help raise awareness among
population about hate speech and send the message that it is unacceptable.
http://english.bhnovinari.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452%3Afinal-report-of-media-monitoring-the-hate-speech-with-focus-on-pre-election-campaign&catid=66%3Aresearch&Itemid=234&lang=en Visited on January 20, 2104.
14
http://soc.ba/soc/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Izvjestaj-govor-mrznje-finalni.pdf Visited on January 22, 2014.
15
Sarajevo Opem Center is an Ngo from Sarajevo, that promotes human rights and fights agaisn discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. It has been
established in 2007 and since then they implemented many projects and published many reports on violation of human rights in Bosnia-Herzegovina. More about
SOC: http://www.soc.ba
16
http://soc.ba/soc/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Izvjestaj-govor-mrznje-finalni.pdf Visited on January 22, 2014.
17
http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/content/na-balkanu-facebook-koriste-najvise-u-srbiji-/24909738.html Visited on April 10, 2014.
13
9
ONLINE HATE SPEECH REGULATION:
THE WAY FORWARD
Bosnia-Herzegovina is a middle income fragile state18, burdened with problems including a divided society, the persistent
danger of conflict and economic crises. B&H also fits patterns of media trends specific to fragile states, having witnessed the
recent and sudden increase in media channels and levels of new technology penetration. While this may seem to be a positive
development -- providing citizens with a vast choice of media channels and platforms -- it is also symptomatic of a weak media
system: while many citizens seek alternative media channels for informative purposes, media owners view the situation as
a fast and easy way to make money and/or political power. As argued earlier in this paper, media policy discourse is mainly
normative in B&H (aimed at debating more on what media ought to be doing in the society rather than what they actually do).
This belief, whereby media are per se a positive force, regardless of political system, is also typical for fragile states. Dominant
academic discourse on online media in B&H is mainly focused on the potential or social and digital media to help foster a new
media climate and promote political and media pluralism. The debate around the nascent media system in B&H centers on
two main tenets: liberalization, which encourages the development of a private, diverse and plural media system; and state
building, which aims to foster a media environment protecting the dominant value system in the country.
Does online hate speech regulation in Bosnia-Herzegovina go in either of these two directions? In addressing the question of how to progress with online hate speech regulation in B&H, four main issues must be addressed, outline below.
The first issue that should be addressed in the regulation of online hate speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the very definition of hate speech. Until date, a definition coined by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1997 remains the
most widely used: “Hate speech implies all kinds of expressions that disseminate, instigate, promote or justify racial hatred,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism or hatred based on intolerance, including the intolerance expressed through aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and animosity towards minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”19 It is important to notice that the Council’s definition, under a decision by the Human Rights Court, now stands as an obligatory law.
Hate speech in Bosnia-Herzegovina is regulated under Article 363 of the Criminal Law of the Federation of B&H
and Article 357 of the Criminal Law of Brčko District, which state: “Those who, breaking standards of professional
behavior of media and journalists, uses hate speech or a speech that directly invites or encourages violence, ethnic
or national confrontations, leading to jeopardizing public order and peace, will be punished with financial fine or up
to three years of prison”.20 In defining hate speech online, and as a precondition for a successful online hate speech
regulation policy, a differentiation by George Weiss, founder and CEO of La Benevolencija Radio21, proves useful:
Hate SpeechNeutral Speech
Arguments only for those who agree with you
One-sided, biased
Destructive
Focus on guilt, personal offense
Solution in favor of only one group
Exclusive
Simple
Derogative language
Emotionally challenging (anger, fear)
Arguments that anyone could support
Balanced, multi-perspective
Constructive
Focus on facts
Solution in favor of everyone in community
Inclusive
Complex
Neutral, respective language
Neutral, calm
Table made according to George Weiss
http://www.oecd.org/dac/incaf/FragileStates2013.pdf Visited on December, 25, 2013.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Training/Training_courses/2012_Mapping_projects_against_Hate_Speech.pdf Visited on December, 25 2014
http://mup.ks.gov.ba/sites/mup.ks.gov.ba/files/Krivicni_zakon_FBIH.pdf Visited on December 25, 2014.
21
Presented to the participants of 2013. An-OX Media Policy Institute, Oxford, UK; 2013.
18
19
20
10
The second issue that must be addressed in order to effectively and fairly regulate online hate speech is directly related to the very nature of technology. Where, in the online sphere, is a line between free speech and hate speech? If
there is a line, and there should be one, it stands as more of a permeable, dotted line, rather than a clear-cut boundary. According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Everyone shall have the right
to hold opinions without interference. 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.”22 In carving out a definition of hate speech
online, however, as mentioned before, contextual variables must be taken into consideration, including but not limited to user intention and the real-world impact of online speech.
The question of where the line between free and hate speech lies also highlights the role of the Internet as a medium
that allows for a diversity of viewpoints, essential to pluralism. This, however, does not necessarily render the Internet a “progressive” medium, as allowing for diverse viewpoints opens the door for the surfacing of extreme ideas as
well. On the other hand, portraying the Internet as a space predominantly “occupied” with hate speech makes the
direct intervention of the state in its control legitimate. Media literacy in B&H has recently been suggested as a “third
way” to negotiate this tension. The interpretation of media literacy, however, itself opens the door to multiple interpretations. In B&H, media literacy has resulted in a practice of focusing on the dangers online, rather than promoting
the opportunities that the Internet offers.
This in turn leads to the third issue that must be addressed: under what circumstances is the intervention of the state
legitimate? In other words, who should regulate online hate speech – and how? In 2011, the B&H Press Council23, as
a self-regulatory body for print and online media, launched a campaign entitled “You Are Not Invisible”, with the aim
of stopping and preventing hate speech in comments on web portals24. The main idea was to engage police and court
authorities in locating the IP addresses of users who post anonymous comments that contain hate speech to online
media outlets. From the get-go, however, members of the Press Council were themselves aware that the action may
have been premature in light of the absence of regulation or legislation that would clearly define their work as legal.
In the words of Council member Miodrag Živanović: “Criminal Law should regulate this in order to enable these institutions to react legally”25. Ultimately, the campaign resulted in a decision by most web portals to allow only users who
disclose their full name or utilize their Facebook profile to post comments to articles.
This in itself, however, is of disputable utility. The idea of allowing only comments signed by a real name or linked to a
Facebook profile is problematic in itself, as the condition of the disclosure of identity is opposed to the principles of
privacy. In debating a similar matter, one US Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre vs Ohio Elections Commission (1995)
stated: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital for democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views… Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority… It thus
exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular”26 The question of whether
it is legitimate to jeopardize privacy in the interest of preventing online hate speech remains open. Another question
that hangs in the balance is the risk of involving state authorities in online hate speech regulation in a fragile state that
lacks clear legislation.
Some arguments27 underplay the idea that average users could, without any structure or professional knowledge,
“control” the Internet. This idea of self-governance online is to some extent different from the original idea of the
self-governance, which relies on knowledge and competences of users (who have been “equipped” with enough media literacy trainings to be able to participate in such self-regulation; however online space is providing “an open
road” to everyone regardless of their knowledge and competences). Who, then, should take charge? The state? Selfregulatory bodies? Or should we go back to the original idea of self-governance that should go hand in hand with the
http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/PSB/02.%20ICCPR%20[UN].pdf Visited on January 20, 2014.
http://www.vzs.ba
24
http://www.pogled.ba/clanak/niste-nevidljivi-policija-ce-uhititi-osobe-zbog-mrznje-na-internetu/11619 Visited on January 20, 2014.
25
http://www.startbih.info/Novost.aspx?novostid=8597 Visited on January 25, 2014.
26
https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity Visited on January 25, 2014.
27
For example, Gregory Asmolov
22
23
11
media literacy that would be used as an „education tool“ to enhance citizens to do so? Brown and Marsden (2013),
for example, call for ”multi-stakeholder-ism“ coupled with a strong government role: “It’s the government setting the
table, inviting the stakeholders to it, and then guiding (or at least “nudging”) policy along the way” (Brown and Marsden, 2013: 187). Other authors, meanwhile, consider state intervention unacceptable on the grounds that it would affect surveillance as well as restrictions and limitations on the accessibility of the Internet, in addition to jeopardizing
privacy. State sovereignty is not dead (as claimed by authors such as Voćkić Avdagić (2002)). Instead, sovereignty has
transformed online into measures that produce what MacKinnon (2012) calls the “consent of the networked,” whereby users agree to certain terms, such as commenting online with their full name instead, in exchange for the ability to
participate in online communication. Another means of addressing this issue is the four-pillar ROAM strategy created
by UNESCO28, which promotes the idea of right-based, free, open, accessible for all and multi-stakeholders Internet.
Finally, the fourth issue that must be addressed is the question of methodology in the research of online hate speech,
which may well prove the basis of future policy on the matter. While the Internet, as a “new” medium, is clearly different
from traditional media, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, traditional research methods continue to be applied. New, interdisciplinary approaches and methods are necessary in order to accurately probe questions of hate speech, among other phenomena, in the online sphere. This is essential to the analysis of reliable data upon which online hate speech regulation
policy could be based.
28
http://www.unesco.org
12
CONCLUSION
An approach that includes multi-stakeholders and champions the importance of media literacy among local communities, as outlined above, is crucial to the development of policies to deal with online hate speech. International laws,
international precedence and the unique cultural and societal specifics should also be factored into policies dealing
with the prevention and regulation of online hate speech, specifically in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
One point of consensus among the international community is the need to regulate hate speech. The International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination29, adopted in 1965 by the UN General Assembly,
was the first international treaty on hate speech. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which entered into force in 1976, also attempts to tackle this issue, stating that “Any advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”30 On
the regional level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)31 and the American Convention on Human
Rights (ACHR)32 guarantee the right to freedom of expression, but do not specifically stipulate the banning of hate
speech. Furthermore, treaties adopted in the cyber-era include the 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Cybercrime33, which entered into force in 2006 and obliges States Parties to adopt legislative and other measures
categorizing as criminal offences under domestic law online hate speech. These documents, coupled with on-theground experiences from Europe and elsewhere, should be taken into account in the development on online hate
speech regulations and/or prevention policies.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that hate speech is not free speech and should in fact be regulated; free
speech, however, must be protected to the highest standards through all attempts at the regulation of online hate
speech. The free flow of information and freedom of expression and speech will inevitably surface in future debate
on the regulation and freedom of the Internet. In regulating online hate speech, the words of Abraham Foxman and
Christopher Wolf resound: “The Internet community can address the problem without compromising our vital historic
commitment to freedom of expression” (Foxman and Wolf, 2013:9).
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx Visited on December 20, 2013
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf Visited on December 20, 2013.
31
http://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.echr.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FConvention_ENG.pdf&ei=NJPu
UsuMKuaX4wTui4CYAg&usg=AFQjCNGQk4wq3OGSUmdbr8416ZvmW4h6Iw&sig2=AO7gkAfHVtOxnabllQOxqw&bvm=bv.60444564,d.bGQ Visited on December 20, 2013
32
http://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oas.org%2Fdil%2Faccess_to_information_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf&ei=bZPuUvf6Hcm7yAOwpoDQCg&usg=AFQjCNHIDD6aojZVpqchRZMY_85g2fhqTg&sig2=zg-2_5Zw67z7Kg5IfelkpA&bvm=bv.60444564,d.bGQ Visited on
December 20, 2013
33
http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/documents/Protocoladd_convcybercrime_en.pdf Visited on December 20, 2013
29
30
13
LITERATURE/SOURCES:
Balle, F. (1997). Moć medija, mandarin I trgovac. Beograd: Clio
Brown I, Marsden C. (2013). Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in an Information Age. Cambridge: MIT
Foxman, A., Wolf, C. (2013). Viral Hate: Containing Its Spread on the Internet. New York: Palgrave and McMillan
MacKinnon, R. (2012). Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom.New York: Basic
Books
Mill J.S. (1985). On Liberty. London: Penguin
Osmančević E. (2009). Demokratičnost www komuniciranja. Sarajevo: FES
Popper K. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume I, The Spell of Plato (5. revidirano izdanje), London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Samoriski, J. (2002). Issues in Cyberspace – Communication, Technology, Law and Society on the Internet Frontier.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Štambuk, V. (1999). Internet i politika. Beograd: Verzal press
Vilović G. (2011). Politološki pojmovnik: govor mržnje u Političke analize: tromjesečnikza analizu hrvatske i
međunarodne politike br. 6/II, Zagreb, juni 2011.
Voćkić Avdagić, J. (2002). Suvremene komunikacije ne/sigurna igra svijeta. Sarajevo:FPN
http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/PSB/02.%20ICCPR%20[UN].pdf
http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/conferences/iccpr-links-between-articles-19-and-20.pdf
http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/Library/HRinstruments.nsf/ec7e20097a57a8f2c1256900004b35db/bd84f996e9215080c12
5663a0036a8de?OpenDocument
http://www.ckdbih.com/dokumenti/STOP%20GOVORU%20MRZNJE_fv%20(1).pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/can-googling-be-racist
https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2012/11/30/bashing-leveson-how-not-to-defend-press-freedom/
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/full-list/freedom-of-connection-freedom-of-expression-the-changing-legal-and-regulatory-ecology-shaping-the-internet/
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/events/calendar-of-events/events-websites/journalism-ethics-and-self-regulation-in-europe-new-media-old-dilemmas/
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
http://www.startbih.info/Novost.aspx?novostid=8597
http://www.pogled.ba/clanak/niste-nevidljivi-policija-ce-uhititi-osobe-zbog-mrznje-na-internetu/11619
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Training/Training_courses/2012_Mapping_projects_against_Hate_Speech.pdf
http://soc.ba/soc/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Izvjestaj-govor-mrznje-finalni.pdf
http://www.vzs.ba
http://www.vijesti.ba/vijesti/bih/172655-Govor-mrznje-medijima-najcesce-proizvode-politicari.html
http://edukacija.vzs.ba/images/coe/pdfs/Govor%20mrznje_%20Ljudskopravaski%20aspekt,%20Sevima%20Sali%20
Terzic.pdf
http://www.coe.ba/web2/en/dokumenti/cat_view/36-coe-general-documents--coe-optidokumenti/116
tions--publikacije.html
publica-
http://english.bhnovinari.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452%3Afinal-report-of-media-monitoring-the-hate-speech-with-focus-on-pre-election-campaign&catid=66%3Aresearch&Itemid=234&lang=en
http://www.sutra.ba/novost/69626/CIGANLUK-Sejdic-fasistoidni-naslov-portala-Dnevnik.ba
http://soc.ba/soc/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Izvjestaj-govor-mrznje-finalni.pdf
14
http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/content/na-balkanu-facebook-koriste-najvise-u-srbiji-/24909738.html
http://www.oecd.org/dac/incaf/FragileStates2013.pdf
http://mup.ks.gov.ba/sites/mup.ks.gov.ba/files/Krivicni_zakon_FBIH.pdf
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100294.pdf
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf
http://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.echr.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FConvention_ENG.pdf&ei=NJPuUsuMKuaX4wTui4CYAg&usg=AFQjCNGQk4w
q3OGSUmdbr8416ZvmW4h6Iw&sig2=AO7gkAfHVtOxnabllQOxqw&bvm=bv.60444564,d.bGQ
http://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
oas.org%2Fdil%2Faccess_to_information_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.pdf&ei=bZPuUvf6Hcm7yAOwpoD
QCg&usg=AFQjCNHIDD6aojZVpqchRZMY_85g2fhqTg&sig2=zg-2_5Zw67z7Kg5IfelkpA&bvm=bv.60444564,d.bGQ
http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/documents/Protocoladd_convcybercrime_en.pdf
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

internet freedom and online hate speech

Transcription

Similar documents

The Get Up Kids Don`t Hate Me

POW - Press Release - A Badge Of Friendship

Télépopmusik Ambushed

`Matt thought he knew` fake profile activity

Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomi

Here is our tenth edition - The Panther`s Report