Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2085013
Ge Chen
ABSTRACT This article reveals how the heterogeneous legal approaches of balancing online hate speech against equality rights in liberal democracies have informed China in its manipulative speech regulation. In an authoritarian constitutional order, the regulation of hate speech is politically relevant only because the hateful topics are related to regime-oriented concerns. The article elaborates on the infrastructure of an emerging authoritarian regulatory patchwork of online hate speech in the global context and identifies China’s unique approach of restricting political contents under the aegis of protecting equality rights. Ultimately, both the regulation and dis-regulation of online hate speech form a statist approach that deviates from the paradigm protective of equality rights in liberal democracies and serves to fend off open criticism of government policies and public discussion of topics that potentially contravene the mainstream political ideologies.
{"title":"How equalitarian regulation of online hate speech turns authoritarian: a Chinese perspective","authors":"Ge Chen","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2085013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085013","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reveals how the heterogeneous legal approaches of balancing online hate speech against equality rights in liberal democracies have informed China in its manipulative speech regulation. In an authoritarian constitutional order, the regulation of hate speech is politically relevant only because the hateful topics are related to regime-oriented concerns. The article elaborates on the infrastructure of an emerging authoritarian regulatory patchwork of online hate speech in the global context and identifies China’s unique approach of restricting political contents under the aegis of protecting equality rights. Ultimately, both the regulation and dis-regulation of online hate speech form a statist approach that deviates from the paradigm protective of equality rights in liberal democracies and serves to fend off open criticism of government policies and public discussion of topics that potentially contravene the mainstream political ideologies.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41350348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2089629
John T. Hartshorne
ABSTRACT This commentary examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google LLC. It outlines the background to the claim and the legal ruling in the case. It considers the implications of the decision for claims relating to loss of control over personal data, and the potential relevance of the decision to claims for compensation under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. It also highlights some significant remarks made by the Supreme Court relating to claims in the tort of misuse of private information.
{"title":"Compensation for loss of control over personal data","authors":"John T. Hartshorne","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2089629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2089629","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This commentary examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google LLC. It outlines the background to the claim and the legal ruling in the case. It considers the implications of the decision for claims relating to loss of control over personal data, and the potential relevance of the decision to claims for compensation under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. It also highlights some significant remarks made by the Supreme Court relating to claims in the tort of misuse of private information.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46500974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014
Thomas Hochmann
ABSTRACT Acknowledging that the government is a user of social networks may help us to better understand its attempt to regulate them. This paper draws on the French case to show different ways of regulating hate speech online. It then turns to the peculiar case of hate speech expressed by the government. There are good reasons to consider that government hate speech can be restricted in Europe as well as in the United States. Europe and the United States however pull apart when the government regulate the discussion space below its online speech. Here, European governments are under an obligation to fight hate speech, when U.S. government infringes the First Amendment when it attempts to do so.
{"title":"Hate speech online: the government as regulator and as speaker","authors":"Thomas Hochmann","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Acknowledging that the government is a user of social networks may help us to better understand its attempt to regulate them. This paper draws on the French case to show different ways of regulating hate speech online. It then turns to the peculiar case of hate speech expressed by the government. There are good reasons to consider that government hate speech can be restricted in Europe as well as in the United States. Europe and the United States however pull apart when the government regulate the discussion space below its online speech. Here, European governments are under an obligation to fight hate speech, when U.S. government infringes the First Amendment when it attempts to do so.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44569521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170
T. Gibbons
ABSTRACT Television service providers in the UK are required to preserve due impartiality as respects all matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In RT v Ofcom, in a judicial review of the regulator’s decisions that the Russian owned television station RT had breached the rules, the Court of Appeal upheld the regulator’s application of the rules and rejected claims that it should have taken account of the balancing effect of a ‘dominant media narrative’ and of RT’s other programming. The court also rejected the claim that the enforcement of the impartiality regime was an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that the regulator's action was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights of members of that democratic society in general and the viewers of RT in particular. This comment discusses the case and its implications.
{"title":"Impartiality in United Kingdom broadcasting","authors":"T. Gibbons","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Television service providers in the UK are required to preserve due impartiality as respects all matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In RT v Ofcom, in a judicial review of the regulator’s decisions that the Russian owned television station RT had breached the rules, the Court of Appeal upheld the regulator’s application of the rules and rejected claims that it should have taken account of the balancing effect of a ‘dominant media narrative’ and of RT’s other programming. The court also rejected the claim that the enforcement of the impartiality regime was an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that the regulator's action was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights of members of that democratic society in general and the viewers of RT in particular. This comment discusses the case and its implications.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48530226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2088074
J. Rowbottom
ABSTRACT While debates on hate speech often focus on the case for banning certain types of expression, this article will focus on less restrictive alternatives. The article will consider the denial of a benefit normally granted to speakers, media regulations and government sponsored speech to counter messages of hate. Such measures, it is argued, are more proportionate than an outright ban and do not exclude any particular viewpoints from political debate. However, such measures also depart from expectations of even-handedness from public bodies in relation to political viewpoints. With these factors in mind, the discussion explores the potential for some types of speech to occupy a grey area, in which messages of hate or extremism do not meet the threshold for prohibition but are still subject to viewpoint-based treatment that would not normally be compatible with freedom of expression.
{"title":"A thumb on the scale: measures short of a prohibition to combat hate speech","authors":"J. Rowbottom","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2088074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2088074","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While debates on hate speech often focus on the case for banning certain types of expression, this article will focus on less restrictive alternatives. The article will consider the denial of a benefit normally granted to speakers, media regulations and government sponsored speech to counter messages of hate. Such measures, it is argued, are more proportionate than an outright ban and do not exclude any particular viewpoints from political debate. However, such measures also depart from expectations of even-handedness from public bodies in relation to political viewpoints. With these factors in mind, the discussion explores the potential for some types of speech to occupy a grey area, in which messages of hate or extremism do not meet the threshold for prohibition but are still subject to viewpoint-based treatment that would not normally be compatible with freedom of expression.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48139239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2083679
Mathias Hong
ABSTRACT When regulating hate speech and disinformation online, first, do not suppress ideas or viewpoints as such, second, protect speech and other fundamental rights as positive freedoms, not only vertically but horizontally too, and, third, counteract private disinformation as well as government disinformation.
{"title":"Regulating hate speech and disinformation online while protecting freedom of speech as an equal and positive right – comparing Germany, Europe and the United States","authors":"Mathias Hong","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2083679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083679","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When regulating hate speech and disinformation online, first, do not suppress ideas or viewpoints as such, second, protect speech and other fundamental rights as positive freedoms, not only vertically but horizontally too, and, third, counteract private disinformation as well as government disinformation.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44972895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2083680
Anjalee de Silva, A. Kenyon
ABSTRACT Hate speech analyses commonly evaluate restrictions on speech or the value of speaking back. Free speech’s negative dimensions are used when assessing restrictions, but the freedom’s positive dimensions are less often considered in relation to counterspeech. Even so, negative and positive dimensions of free expression are always relevant for responses to vilification, and the freedom’s positive dimensions have important implications for the communicative structure underlying democratic public speech. The degree to which that structure comes close to being an environment of sustained plural public speech is an important part of the context in which hate speech and counterspeech arise. The communicative context matters. These structural aspects of free speech played a partial role in dealing with vilification in mass media contexts, but face challenges in current communication environments. The challenges are not unique to hate speech, but they are important for understanding how best to deal with vilification now.
{"title":"Countering hate speech in context: positive freedom of speech","authors":"Anjalee de Silva, A. Kenyon","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2083680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083680","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Hate speech analyses commonly evaluate restrictions on speech or the value of speaking back. Free speech’s negative dimensions are used when assessing restrictions, but the freedom’s positive dimensions are less often considered in relation to counterspeech. Even so, negative and positive dimensions of free expression are always relevant for responses to vilification, and the freedom’s positive dimensions have important implications for the communicative structure underlying democratic public speech. The degree to which that structure comes close to being an environment of sustained plural public speech is an important part of the context in which hate speech and counterspeech arise. The communicative context matters. These structural aspects of free speech played a partial role in dealing with vilification in mass media contexts, but face challenges in current communication environments. The challenges are not unique to hate speech, but they are important for understanding how best to deal with vilification now.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48897972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2082520
Uta Kohl
ABSTRACT This paper argues that the binary opposition in the treatment of hate speech in the US and Europe hides non-binary preoccupations that reflect different primary fears which do not fall along the same ‘scale’. European liberal democracies fear the consequences of hate speech being left uncensored in the public domain (a WHAT concern) whilst America fears the consequences of content interventions by government (a WHO concern). The paper then proposes that the German Network Enforcement Law of 2017 builds a bridge between American and European speech traditions. NetzDG requires major platforms to moderate content in response to user takedown notices based on legally imposed speech standards. The mechanism of public standards being enforced through private processes is arguably uniquely adept at simultaneously assuaging the primary European fear about the absence of effective speech controls in the public domain and the primary American fear about the presence of governmental censorship.
{"title":"Platform regulation of hate speech – a transatlantic speech compromise?","authors":"Uta Kohl","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2082520","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2082520","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper argues that the binary opposition in the treatment of hate speech in the US and Europe hides non-binary preoccupations that reflect different primary fears which do not fall along the same ‘scale’. European liberal democracies fear the consequences of hate speech being left uncensored in the public domain (a WHAT concern) whilst America fears the consequences of content interventions by government (a WHO concern). The paper then proposes that the German Network Enforcement Law of 2017 builds a bridge between American and European speech traditions. NetzDG requires major platforms to moderate content in response to user takedown notices based on legally imposed speech standards. The mechanism of public standards being enforced through private processes is arguably uniquely adept at simultaneously assuaging the primary European fear about the absence of effective speech controls in the public domain and the primary American fear about the presence of governmental censorship.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42974997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870
Peter Coe
ABSTRACT In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany’s Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK’s Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed ‘responsibility’ as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora’s Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more ‘control of the message’.
{"title":"The Draft Online Safety Bill and the regulation of hate speech: have we opened Pandora’s box?","authors":"Peter Coe","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany’s Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK’s Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed ‘responsibility’ as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora’s Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more ‘control of the message’.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48704213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2022.2092261
Oliver Butler, Sophie Turenne
ABSTRACT On the initiative of the British Association of Comparative Law, this issue develops a broad comparative perspective on aspects of the legal regulation of hate speech online in China, France, Germany, the UK, Europe and the US. This editorial introduces the key lines of debates running through the papers. First, contributors discuss the appropriate role of public and private actors in regulating hate speech, with extensive reference to the German NetzDG and consideration of the UK Online Safety Bill. They also consider the communicative environment in which hate speech or ‘vilification’ arises; the ‘intermediate’ regulation or restrictions that sit between inclusion and prohibition of hate speech; and the concerns about the control, or lack of control, exercised by private actors over the speech of governmental public figures. They finally remind us that different legal and political cultures ultimately shape regional approaches, even when they share apparently similar rules.
{"title":"The regulation of hate speech online and its enforcement - a comparative outlook","authors":"Oliver Butler, Sophie Turenne","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2092261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2092261","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT On the initiative of the British Association of Comparative Law, this issue develops a broad comparative perspective on aspects of the legal regulation of hate speech online in China, France, Germany, the UK, Europe and the US. This editorial introduces the key lines of debates running through the papers. First, contributors discuss the appropriate role of public and private actors in regulating hate speech, with extensive reference to the German NetzDG and consideration of the UK Online Safety Bill. They also consider the communicative environment in which hate speech or ‘vilification’ arises; the ‘intermediate’ regulation or restrictions that sit between inclusion and prohibition of hate speech; and the concerns about the control, or lack of control, exercised by private actors over the speech of governmental public figures. They finally remind us that different legal and political cultures ultimately shape regional approaches, even when they share apparently similar rules.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48440285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：