Social media before domestic courts in Europe: An analysis of free speech cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2097919
Author(s):  
Evangelia Psychogiopoulou ◽  
Federica Casarosa
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Test Bed ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
The Impact

Social media arose as a way to communicate with friends, but it evolved to become a significant medium through which individuals exercise their right to free speech. At the same time, social media has raised a variety of challenges for fundamental rights. Whereas national and supranational legislators play a key role in terms of governing social media, court decisions are a test-bed for the protection of fundamental rights in a social media context. This article seeks to shed light on the social media jurisprudence of constitutional and supreme courts in a selected set of EU Member States. It examines in particular the contribution of national judiciaries to the protection of freedom of expression online and its balancing with other rights and interests in a social media setting. The focus is on cases that concern political speech, cases that examine the application of safeguards for the press on social media, and cases that reflect upon the impact of social media on legacy media regulation, that is, regulation for the mass media from the pre-digital age. The analysis identifies key trends in domestic judicial reasoning and shows the importance of fundamental rights as an interpretative tool for judicial decision-making on social media standards.

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

Metaphors, Judicial Frames, and Fundamental Rights in Cyberspace

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Morelli ◽  
Oreste Pollicino
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Degree Of Protection ◽  
Digital World ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Point

Abstract How do legal imagination, metaphors, and the “judicial frame” impact the degree of protection for free expression when the relevant (technological) playground is the world of bits? This Article analyzes the so-called judicial frame, focusing on legal disputes relating to freedom of expression on the Internet. The authors compare the European Court of Human Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court case law from a methodological perspective. The Article shows how the adoption by supreme courts of an internal or external point of view in relation to the Internet affects not only the use of different metaphors to describe the digital world, but also the balance struck between the fundamental rights at stake.

scholarly journals Understanding the delivery of Islamophobic hate speech via social media in Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-270
Author(s):  
Kastolani Kastolani
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
The Impact

Various prior studies on Islamophobia had largely utilized Western perspectives.This occurred on account of Islam and Muslims being a minority group that is considered as a threat to the majority. This article discusses the delivery of Islamophobic hate speech via social media in the context of Indonesia, where the majority of the population are Muslims. This study found that the delivery of hate speech concerning via social media in the Indonesian context can be understood in three different manners, namely: First, Islamophobia is a reaction to religious sermons delivered by Muslim pundits discrediting other religions, particularly the Christian faith. Second, Islamophobia is a form of freedom of expression for netizens in Indonesia’s current democratic climate. Third, Islamophobia is a form of identity politics for netizens on social media due to the impact of religious based political polarization. Subsequently, this study contributes a new understanding of Islamophobia within the context of Muslims as the majority and of netizens’ activities on social media in Indonesia. The research data were obtained by observing Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter timelines containing Islamophobic hate speech that had gone viral on social media. Berbagai penelitian sebelumnya tentang Islamophobia sebagian besar telah memanfaatkan perspektif Barat. Artikel ini mendiskusikan penyampaian ujaran kebencian Islamophobia melalui media sosial dalam konteks Indonesia sebagai negara yang mayoritas penduduknya penganut agama Islam (muslim). Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penyampaian ujaran kebencian tentang Islamophobia melalui media sosial dalam konteks Indonesia dapat dibaca sebagai tiga hal, yaitu: Pertama, Islamophobia merupakan reaksi terhadap ceramah keagamaan dari kalangan agamawan muslim yang mendiskreditkan agama lain, terutama keyakinan agama Kristen. Kedua, Islamophobia merupakan bentuk kebebasan berekspresi bagi netizen dalam iklim demokrasi di Indonesia saat ini. Ketiga, Islamophobia merupakan bentuk politik identitas netizen di media sosial karena dampak polarisasi politik berbasis keagamaan. Sehingga, penelitian ini berkontribusi terhadap pemahaman baru tentang Islamophobia dalam konteks muslim sebagai mayoritas dan aktivitas netizen di media sosial di Indonesia. Data penelitian diperoleh dari pengamatan terhadap media social seperti facebook, Instagram, YouTube dan Twitter yang memuat ujaran kebencian tentang Islamophobia yang viral di media social.

scholarly journals Fakebook: why Facebook makes the fake news problem inevitable

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-530
Author(s):  
Paul Bernal
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Business Model ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Mass Data ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Internet And Social Media

The current ‘fake news’ phenomenon is a modern manifestation of something that has existed throughout history. The difference between what happens now and what has happened before is driven by the nature of the internet and social media – and Facebook in particular. Three key strands of Facebook’s business model – invading privacy to profile individuals, analysing mass data to profile groups, then algorithmically curating content and targeting individuals and groups for advertising – create a perfect environment for fake news. Proposals to ‘deal’ with fake news either focus on symptoms or embed us further in the algorithms that create the problem. Whilst we embrace social media, particularly as a route to news, there is little that can be done to reduce the impact of fake news and misinformation. The question is whether the benefits to freedom of expression that social media brings mean that this is a price worth paying.

scholarly journals The Impact of Digital Platforms and Social Media on the Freedom of Expression and Pluralism

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-322
Author(s):  
Marcin Wielec ◽  
Bartłomiej Oręziak ◽  
Aleš Rozehnal ◽  
Davor Derenčinović ◽  
Dušan V. Popović ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
The Impact

17. Article 10: freedom of expression

2021 ◽  
pp. 360-389
Author(s):  
Howard Davis
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Liberal Democratic Society ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Domestic Law

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. It discusses European Convention law and relates it to domestic law under the HRA. Questions, discussion points, and thinking points help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress and knowledge can be tested by self-test questions and exam questions at the chapter end. This chapter focuses on Article 10, one of the fundamental rights acknowledged in a liberal, democratic society—freedom of expression. Article 10 is a qualified right which reflects the idea that there can be important and legitimate reasons as to why freedom of expression may need to be restricted in order to protect other important rights and freedoms. While the first paragraph of Article 10 establishes a general right to freedom of expression, its second paragraph identifies the only bases upon which the right can be restricted. Restriction of the freedom of expression is subject to scrutiny by the courts, and its necessity must be established by the state. In particular the chapter discusses human rights in the context of political speech and the impact of restraints on hate speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document