Recommendations for the OSCE Dublin Conference on Internet Freedom

June 18-19, 2012 in Dublin (Ireland) hosted an OSCE conference "Freedom on the Internet" . We publish the recommendations of the SOVA center presented at the conference along with the speech of our representative.

Our recommendations lie in the area that seems to us especially problematic. This is the ratio of counteracting hate propaganda on the Internet and protecting freedom of expression on the Internet.

We recommend:

OSCE:

1. Continue the series of specialized events dedicated to two interrelated themes – countering hate speech online and protecting freedom of expression on the Internet.

2. Organize an expert discussion with the participation of specialists on Internet technologies to prepare reference material on comparative characteristics of various methods of restricting access to a particular unwanted content.

It is also necessary to systematize the methods of accounting for the real audience of a particular content element, depending on the method and place of its placement on the Internet.

This kind of reference material is needed to improve the quality of the discussion on countering hate speech on the Internet at level of civil society, politicians and governments.

Participating countries:

1. Do not legislate special restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet.

For this, general norms of this kind are sufficient.

1. In legislation relating to unlawful public statements, general formulations that allow too broad interpretation. As far as hate speech is concerned, only public statements can be criminalized, directly or indirectly inciting violence or severe forms of discrimination.

Other manifestations of intolerance should remain in the sphere acceptable public controversy. Which will only make the controversy against them more efficient.

1. Clarification needed for law enforcement and courts that the public danger of inflammatory speech directly depends on the size of the audience to which they were addressed. Technical clarifications are also needed on how to realistically assess the audience of that or any other statement, depending on the method and place of its placement in the Internet.

Without this kind of clarification, law enforcement related to the Internet remains highly arbitrary, making it inefficient.

1. Do not rely on mechanisms to block access to any illegal content. Such mechanisms are only in specific conditions (for example, in schools) do not give rise to undue restrictions and may be effective (and then only to a limited extent).

In countering hate speech on the Internet, lean

first, to prosecute those who systematically conducts really dangerous inflammatory propaganda;

secondly, to agreements with other countries and representatives of the Internet industry about the removal of content based on infringement Rules of Service (TOS).

Representatives of civil society:

1. Collaborate with representatives of the Internet industry to removal of inflammatory and other xenophobic content based on violations of the rules of service (TOS).

This form of opposition to racism and other social dangerous phenomena on the Internet is not censorship, as it is based on voluntary agreements.

1. Lead an active public debate against the spread of racism and other socially dangerous phenomena on the Internet.

Controversy, as a rule, is a more effective tool than appeal to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the latter is often entail unlawful restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens, including third persons.

Contact law enforcement authorities with complaints about inflammatory language should only be used when there is confidence in their illegality and real public danger.

Same article in other threads:

• Illegal anti-extremism
• Publications