Addressing «Lawful» Hate Speech ELSA Conference

1. Addressing «Lawful» Hate SpeechELSA Conference Ronald Craig

2. Why Talk about «Lawful» Hate Speech?(Non-criminalizable hate speech) • Criminalizable hate speechonlyinvolvestheverytipoftheiceberg • Hate speechbelowthethresholdofcriminalstatutescausesgreat harm to society

3. Alternative Ways to Address Hate Speech • Weneedthecriminalroute as a mechanismof last resort for theworst cases • Criminalroute is extremelylimited and ineffective in addressingthelarger problem • See parallel to thehistoricaldevelopmentofhowweaddressdiscrimination and promoteequality

4. Development of Work for Equality • ?

5. We Need Alternatives to Criminal Law • I am not suggesting newlaws (civil or criminal) to curb or restrictthefreedom to express «lawful» hate speech. • I am usingthisparallel to show thatwedid not get far addressingdiscrimination by wayofcriminallaws, and wewon’tget far addressing hate speechpredominantly by wayofcriminallaws.

6. Definition • Hate speech is defined as bias-motivated, hostile, maliciousspeechaimed at a person or a groupofpeoplebecauseofsomeoftheiractual or perceived innate characteristics. …[T]hose characteristics … includegender, race, religion, ethnicity, color, nationalorigin, disability or sexualorientation. (Raphael Cohen-Amalgor, (2011) «Fighting Hate and Bigotry on theInternet, Policy and Internet, Vol. 3(3))

7. An Unfortunate Approach to Hate Speech«The Troll will Disintegrate» • The Norwegian Law Commission on Freedomof Expression in 1999 stateditsprinciplestandpoint on hate speech to be: • Hate speechwill, whenexpressed, be aired, cleaned and madedecentthroughdiscussion and criticism. In order for this to happenthe hate speech must getexpressed. The criminallawprovision is seen as a last bastion againsttheworsekindsof cases. (NOU 1999: 27, page 203)

8. The Government adopts «The Troll will Disintegrate» Approach • In 2003 the Norwegian Government agreed with this principled position in addressing hate speech. (St. meld. nr. 26 (2003-2004), page 72) • «Discriminatory attitudes should as far as possible be countered by the undesirable speech being expressed and reacted to in the public sphere.» • This government position may help to explain why Norway does not have a well-designed nor comprehensive strategy to deal with the negative effects of hate speech.

9. Is there any evidence thatthe Troll will Disintegrate in the sun? • There is nothing to suggest that there is any truth to the proposition that hate speech, when uttered, gets cleansed and made decent through discussion and criticism. • No research supports this!

10. The Research Available • Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (1954) • John Dovidio (ed.),On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport (2005)

11. The Harm: Hate speech: • Promotes exclusion from society and greater polarization, which breaks down social cohesion • Produces a «chilling effect» to participation in our democratic system • Both reflects and perpetuates bias (Not only a sympton; also a carrier of disease. Hate speech leads to more hate speech) • Devalues the target outgroups • Produces anxiety and distress among target groups • Strips people of their dignity

12. The Harm: Hate speech: (# 2) • Can trigger discrimination • Can produce a culture of fear towards outgroups without rational justification • Can lead to violence

13. National strategies to Counter the Social Harm of Hate Speech • Focus on hate speech and prejudice in school curriculum and course materials • Allocate monies to research on the prevalence and social harms of hate speech (so as to make the harms visible) and mechanisms to reduce harms • Encourage media self-regulation, eg. through use of moderators, full-name policies, • Include the social harms of hate speech and group stigmatization in the ethics curriculum in the education of journalists

14. National strategies to Counter the Social Harm of Hate Speech (# 2) • Enact a law giving all public authorities (state, regional and local) a positive duty to actively promote community cohesion in their roles as policy-makers, service-providers and budget-maker • Initiate campaigns of awareness to counter hate speech • Support economically arenas for the interaction of different social groups. (Such arenas encourage the exchange of ideas and breakdown stereotypes and prejudice)

15. Afterword • Despite my suggestions for a strategy …. • It is the Government and its agencies that has the responsibility – in dialogue with civil society – to explore the best ways to address the harms of hate speech.

16. The Experience of NRK Moderators • The experience of the comment moderators at NRK is that without moderation, the comment section gets sidetracked or hijacked by hate speech proponents. • The ordinary comment rules of NRK are made for keeping the quality and flow of the conversation – rules such as full-name policy, off-topic comment get deleted, unreasonable attacks on the author get deleted. These rules usually delete the vast majority of hate speech. One does not even have to use the special hate speech rule. • RC comment: This means it is in the business interest of media publishers to have such rules.

17. Afterword: Guidance to Media Publishers • Many media publishers experience that the comment section has a higher quality and flow of conversation when full names are required, attempts to sidetrack the topic are avoided, and when discourse ethics are insisted upon. • You have the right as a business decision-maker to require all who submit comments to use their full names • You have the right to delete all comments which attempt to sidetrack or hijack the topic • You have a right to delete all comments that unreasonably attack the author of the article • You have the right to delete unlawful hate speech • We encourage you to spread knowledge of these rights to all actors in the media industry