"My name is Safiya Rizvi. I will be starting year 13 this September. I want to do pursue higher studies and career opportunities in the field of law. I am trying to gain work experience, for example, I just did a law work experience program with Springpod. My interests are public speaking, debating and doing Theater. Besides English, I also know French and Hindi as other languages. I have good analytical, research and communication skills because of my A-level subjects."
What is ‘Hate Speech’?
First and foremost, the legal definition of Hate Speech differs from country to country. Let’s see how the Cambridge Dictionary defines it - "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". These aspects of a person’s identity are known as ‘protected strands’ of identity.
Any form of communication that demonstrates hatred towards any individual based on, along with the things mentioned above in the definition, a person’s nationality, ethnic origin, gender reassignment, or disability come under Hate Speech.
If something that is said, can come across as threatening, offensive or is putting someone under stress, can be some elements of Hate Speech.
While Hate Speech is common in a lot of places and can take place in many ways, one of the most common is social media platforms.
How is the Law involved when it comes to ‘Hate Speech’, specifically on social media?
There are various reasons why we have laws that restrict Hate Speech on social media, one of the biggest and the most obvious one is the fact that people think it is okay for them to make derogatory and insulting comments. For instance, in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center, 67% of people in the United States, 50% in Latin America and 46% in Europe, agreed with the statement ‘people should be allowed to be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly’.
In today's day and age, it is right to know that a lot of developed countries have laws that regulate and limit Hate Speech such as Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Having Hate Speech laws means that, if someone practices Hate Speech to an extent that is going beyond the law, does not matter if it is on or offline, they will face consequences as it is considered a crime.Therefore, online Hate Speech can be as major as any other hate crime and anyone using social media to express Hate Speech, can be charged with bullying, harassment, cyber stalking, encouraging hatred, provoking to commit violence, malicious communications etc.
For example, let's talk about the United Kingdom. In England, Wales and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986, forbids by its part 3, any proclamation of hatred towards a group based on the group’s nationality, colour, ethinic or national origins or race. Section 18 of the Act states:
“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if -
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
People that commit crimes that fall under part 3, have a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment or fine or both.
Furthermore, section 4A was put into the Public Order Act 1986 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which includes forbidding anyone to bring about any type of alarm or distress. Section 4A says, in part:
(1) “A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”
Anyone who commits a crime under this section is chargeable for summary conviction (which is the conviction of a person as the result of his trial before a magistrate or court) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on a standard scale (in the magistrates’ court, there are five fine levels, 5 being the highest as it is unlimited) or both.
Also, the Public Order Act 1986 was also modified by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 by adding Part 3A. That Part says,
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
The Part also protects freedom of expression by saying in Section 29J:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system”.
For example, the case of Norwood v. United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights declared that if anyone makes a vehement and explicit attack on a particular group, that will be considered as an act of breaching Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A poster that asked for the removal of all Muslims from Britain was placed on the window by Norwood, a member of an extreme right-wing political party. The poster was removed by the police and because of this offense, he was charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. In addition, the court also stated that Article 10 on freedom of expression cannot be used in opposition to Article 17 which declares that a person cannot get involved in something that has the intentions to take away the freedoms and rights of another person.
Moreover, part 3A of The Public Order Act 1986 was also modified by The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The modified part 3 adds, for England and Wales, the offence of encouraging hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. In part 3, all the offences link to the following acts -
“the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting”.
To give an example, in 2017, Paul Hepplestal was charged with ‘racially aggravated malicious communications’. This is because he posted abusive and alarming videos against the Pakistani and Muslim communities. He was given a sentence of 20 months in prison, along with a 5 year restraining order meaning he was not allowed to delete his internet history.
Similarly, in 2019, Jay Davison was charged with ‘stirring up religious and racial hatred’ through a video he posted on instagram. As a result, he was jailed for 4 years and the judge said “This a warning for people that posting material online can have damaging consequences for them offline”.
What are the Laws on ‘Hate Speech’ on the internet and social media platforms?
Facebook and Youtube are two of the companies that have Hate Speech policies. For example, In 2018, Facebook identified a post as Hate Speech and removed it. It was a post involving a section of the United States Declaration of Independence and it labelled Native Americans as "merciless Indian savages".
Also, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google, on the 31st of May 2016, together agreed to a European Union code of conduct which constrained them to assess “the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours.
The debate over ‘Hate speech’ and ‘Freedom of Speech’
However, there has been a lot of dispute in terms of Hate Speech, Hate Speech laws as well as Freedom of Speech. This is because, an important thing to remember is that Hate speech is not a legal term in all countries.
For example, ‘Hate Speech’ is not a legal term in the United States. The basic right to freedom of speech is protected by the constitution, therefore, Hate Speech is not directly controlled or regulated. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. The Supreme Court has stated time and again that a lot of what would be considered Hate Speech in other western countries is legally protected under freedom of speech. This can be seen in the Supreme court case Matal v. Tam, in 2017. In this case, the justices reconfirmed that there is no ‘Hate Speech’ exception to the free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, they also reconfirmed that the U.S. government may not, on the basis of the speech-makers differentiate against speech.
At the University of Birmingham, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature, Rebecca Ruth Gould supports the idea of free speech rights, protected by the First Amendment in the United States. She claims that the laws and regulations against Hate Speech represent viewpoint discrimination. This is because the law charges and punishes some viewpoints but not others but Gideon Elford who is also a scholar states that “insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense”.
Furthermore, some scholars and activists find fault with the idea of limiting Hate Speech. For example, Nadine Strossen, a civil liberties activist argues that although the aim of censoring Hate Speech is to protect the most vulnerable, on the other hand they can be ineffective. For example, the disadvantaged minorities can be charged with transgressing laws against Hate Speech. This means Hate Speech laws can be used against the minorities, citing examples that they have violated the law in retaliation.
Some have also argued that there are some advantages to allowing Hate Speech. For instance, Michael Conklin claims that if hate speech is allowed, it will give us a more accurate vision of the human condition, provides us with chances to change people’s points of views and helps recognise people that should be avoided in certain situations. For example, according to a psychological study, while none of the other measures investigated were found to have statistical significance, a high level of psychopathy is a ‘significant predictor’ for participation in online hate activity.
However, on the other hand, some may argue that laws and regulations that we currently have, for example the Facebook and Youtube policies mentioned above, to restrict and control Hate Speech on social media are extremely important. This is because, there is already, even with the laws and regulations, a great deal of Hate Speech online and it occurs so often. In 2018, using a representative UK sample, The office of communications found that ‘near half of UK Internet users reported seeing hateful content online in the past year, with 16- to 34-year-olds most likely to report seeing this content (59 per cent for 16–24s and 62 per cent for 25–34s).
How does ‘Hate Speech’ impact the speaker?
Even though Hate Speech might not always result in a criminal record, it can still have a number of effects on the poster’s life which are negative. This further supports the idea of Hate Speech laws being necessary on social media platforms, because this demonstrates the fact that Hate Speech does not only affect the person it is against but also the person who is practicing the Hate Speech.
For example, loss of job. In 2015, a zoo employee lost her job after posting a racist selfie. It can also do damage to your reputation. For instance, after a series of racist tweets from 2011 were found on his account, Jack Maynard, in 2015, was pulled from ‘I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here’. Moreover, you can also be banned, or your account can be removed or suspended, because of hateful content and material that disobeyed the platform's community rules, both Facebook and twitter have suspended various accounts. Therefore, it can be said that laws that regulate Hate Speech at least, minimise the amount of hate speech to a certain extent as some people might be a little more cautious after thinking about the consequences that come with the expression of Hate Speech or if people see someone who had to deal with the consequences of breaking Hate Speech laws, such as the examples given above, they might restrain themselves from doing the same.
How does ‘Hate Speech’ affect people's lives and their safety?
Expression of Hate Speech against a certain person or group is very dangerous and can be very damaging. People can feel very secluded, dejected, scared and worried about how they are perceived by people. For example, in 2019,The Office of Communications found that, “47% of internet users have seen hateful content online directed at a particular group of people” and “55% of social media users have seen something that has upset or offended them in last year”.
These feelings can worsen if they see other people online ‘liking’ or sharing the posts with other people. As a consequence of this, gang-like behaviour of some groups towards others can very easily occur. There are cases in real life that provide evidence for the fact that online hate can encourage people to be violent and show hateful behaviour such as, shootings, bombings, physical assault, verbal abuse etc.
For instance, in 2019, data from twitter was recorded by the academics from Cardiff University’s HateLab project, while the police recorded crime data from London over a period of eight months to find out whether there was a significant link between the two. They found out that as the number of “hate tweets” made against someone's race, ethnicity or religion, made from one location increased, the number of religiously and racially aggravated crimes which involved violence, harrying etc increased as well. Afterwards, professor Mathew Williams, director of HateLab stated, "This is the first UK study to demonstrate a consistent link between Twitter hate speech targeting race and religion and racially and religiously aggravated offenses that happen offline”.
Moreover, Hate Speech on social media has also provoked violence in other countries. For instance, in Germany, an association was found between the anti-refuge posts on Facebook by the far-right Alternative for Germany party and the attacks on the refugees. The situation became worse, when there were upticks in attacks, after an increase in hate mongering posts, as observed by scholars Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz.
It was also observed that the recent white supermacist attacks in the United States were influenced by the online racist groups as the perpetrators were found to be interacting with these groups as well as used social media to publicly share their acts. In June 2015, The Charleston church shooter who killed nine black clergy and worshippers, got involved in a “self-learning process” online that resulted in him believing that the aim of white supremacy required violent behaviour and action, said the prosecutors.
On that account, it is clear that people have different opinions and there are arguments for and against the importance and need of Laws and regulations on online Hate Speech. What are your thoughts about it?
Comments
Post a Comment