Singapore’s Latest Efforts at Regulating Online Hate Speech: A Perspective From International Law and International Practices

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Siyuan ◽  
Chia Chen Wei
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Hate Speech

Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Media Regulation

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.

scholarly journals The Constitutionality of the Prohibition of Hate Speech in terms of Section 10(1) of the Equality Act: A Reply to Botha and Govindjee

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Marelize Marais ◽  
Jan L (Loot) Pretorius
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Point Of Departure

This is a reply to a critique by Botha and Govindjee (2017 PELJ 1-32) of our interpretation of the hate speech provisions of the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000) in Marais and Pretorius (2015 PELJ 901-942), in which we considered the constitutionality of section 10(1) of the Act, amongst other things. We address Botha and Govindjees' rejection of our view that hate speech is a form of unfair discrimination and that the most appropriate constitutional framework within which section 10(1) should be interpreted and assessed is sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. We consider Botha and Govindjees' rejection of this point of departure, their opposing different interpretation of the role of the proviso in section 12 of the Act and, generally, their reasons for concluding that section 10(1) is unconstitutional. We maintain that Botha and Govindjee's proposals for reform unduly restrict the hate speech prohibition to cover exclusively expression that warrants criminalisation. In doing so, they fail to fully acknowledge the transformative obligation in terms of international law, the Constitution and the Equality Act, to prohibit and prevent unfair discrimination.  

Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions for Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Reiners
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Transnational Actors ◽  
Treaty Body ◽  
The Right

Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions is the first comprehensive analysis of the role and impact of informal collaborations in the UN human rights treaty bodies. Issues as central to international human rights as the right to water, abortion, torture, and hate speech are often only clarified through the instrument of treaty interpretations. This book dives beneath the surface of the formal access, procedures, and actors of the UN treaty body system to reveal how the experts and external collaborators play a key role in the development of human rights. Nina Reiners introduces the concept of 'Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions' within a novel theoretical framework and draws on a number of detailed case studies and original data. This study makes a significant contribution to the scholarship on human rights, transnational actors, and international organizations, and contributes to broader debates in international relations and international law.

scholarly journals Demistifying Hate Speech under the PEPUDA

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Judith Geldenhuys ◽  
Michelle Kelly-Louw
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
South African ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The South ◽  
Foreign Law

The factual matrix that is considered in each hate speech case differs from that in the next. However, certain factors always remain key in the process of balancing the different constitutional rights at play: who the victim is, who the perpetrator is and the nature of the expression. Additional factors to be considered in deciding whether an expression constitutes hate speech include: historical associations; who the utterer is as against the victim(s); the audience that is addressed and where the utterance is made; and the prevailing social conditions. How South African courts and the South African Human Rights Commission factor in these specific issues in assessing whether an utterance constitutes hate speech is examined in this contribution. Applicable international law principles and comparable foreign law reveal certain areas of the South African hate speech protection requiring refinement.

Tracking Hate Speech Acts as Incitement to Genocide in International Criminal Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 523-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHANNON FYFE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ethnic Group ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Mass Violence ◽  
Public Speech

AbstractIn this article, I argue that we need a better understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the current debates in international law surrounding hate speech and inchoate crimes. I construct a theoretical basis for speech acts as incitement to genocide, distinguishing these speech acts from speech as genocide and speech denying genocide by integrating international law with concepts drawn from speech act theory and moral philosophy. I use the case drawn on by many commentators in this area of international criminal law, the trial of media executives for the roles they played in the Rwandan genocide through public speech acts by media entities insulting an ethnic group or advocating violence against an ethnic group. Each of these men were institutional leaders and were charged with using their positions within Rwandan society to distribute what I call genocidal hate speech, genocidal incitement speech, and genocidal participation speech. I argue for a distinction between these three types of speech, and a difference in individual criminal liability for the dissemination of each type of speech. I also argue that there should be a difference in individual criminal liability for speech acts within the context of an ongoing or recent genocide, and speech acts that can be separated from a site of mass violence.

scholarly journals Editorial

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Christa Rautenbach
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Water Security ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Western Cape ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Western Law

This edition of PER consists of one oratio, 13 articles and one book review dealing with a variety of themes.The first contribution is an oratio delivered by Lourens du Plessis at a colloquium hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, on 2 October 2015 to celebrate his life and work, in which he aptly refers to himself as a "learned jackal for justice".The first of the 13 articles is by Lonias Ndlovu, who uses the 2013 Supreme Court of India case of Novartis AG v Union of India to argue for legislative reform by SADC members in the granting of patents for new versions of old medicines. Secondly, Lunga Siyo and John Mubangizi consider whether the existing constitutional and legislative mechanisms provide sufficient judicial independence to South African judges, which is fundamental to democracy.Leah Ndimurwimo and Melvin Mbao trace the root causes of Burundi's systemic armed violence and argue that despite several UN Security Council Resolutions and peace agreements aimed at national reconciliation and reconstruction, mass killings and other heinous crimes remain unaddressed. In the fourth place, Marelize Marais and Jan Pretorius present a detailed contextual analysis of the categorical prohibition of hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the Equality Act). Phillipa King and Christine Reddell discuss the pivotal role of the public in water use rights, especially in the context of theNational Water Act 36 of 1998 in the fifth article. The difficulties surrounding the tripartite scheme of statutory, constitutional and living law in a pluralistic system such as South Africa are the focus of the article by Rita Ozoemena. She uses the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC) as an example to illustrate the difficulties experienced in trying to balance this scheme. Angela van der Berg critically discusses and describes from a legal perspective the potential and function of public-private partnerships (PPPs) between local government (municipalities) and the private sector in fulfilling the legally entrenched disaster management mandate of municipalities. André van der Walt and Sue-Mari Viljoen argue that there are sound theoretical and systemic reasons why it is necessary to keep in mind the differences between property, land rights and housing rights when analysing, interpreting and applying any of these rights in a specific constitutional text. The special procedural measures which must be considered in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 in order to decide if a contract is procedurally fair are analysed by Philip Stoop in his article. Liz Lewis also scrutinises the judicial development of customary law in the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC). She pleads for a judicial approach which take cognisance of the norms and values with reference to their particular context and audience instead of those embedded in international and western law. Water security, which is dealt with by Ed Couzens, remains a highly topical theme in a country such as South Africa. He explores ways to circumvent the effects of the Constitutional Court in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg 2010 4 SA 1 (CC) with regard to the allocation of water to the poor. Izelle du Plessis discusses some of the existing opinions regarding the incorporation of double taxation agreements into the domestic law of South Africa. Last, but not least, Koos Malan deliberates on the rule of law and constitutional supremacy and comes to the conclusion that they are, from the perspective of the factual dimension of the law, more susceptible to the volatility of unpredictable changes and instability than the doctrine of the rule of law and constitutional supremacy purport them to be.In the last contribution to this edition, Robbie Robinson reviews the book "International Law and Child Soldiers" written by Gus Waschefort and published by Hart Publishing (Oxford) in 2015. He is of the opinion that the book is asine qua non for studies of children in international law.

Online Hate Speech: A Critical Appraisal of law relating Electronic Evidence in India

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Chhtrapati Devangkumar ◽  
Dilip Mevada
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Communication Devices ◽  
Legal Mechanism ◽  
Computer Resources ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Civilized Society

We are living in the era of technology and internet is gift of technology. The advantage of internet is blessings but misuse of internet results into the headache. Online hate speech is one of the issues of the modern era. The legal mechanism is also going through big challenge regarding the protection of online hate speech in India. Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2002, was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it created challenge for the protection of online hate speech. We have seen number of incidence where fake news/objectionable materials/hate speech/rumors are put through computer resources and communication devices. It had spread hate and violence in the large number of cases. The researcher put light on the notion of hate speech and discuss in detail the international law, domestic law and judicial pronouncements. Civilized Society is facing enormous crisis to deal with online hate speech. The researcher is examining the existing legal mechanism on online hate speech with the relevant provisions of the law and judgments. Electronic evidence is vital to judge the online hate speech. The legal mechanism and judicial pronouncements on the electronic evidence are scrutinized in

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document