Efforts to
curb far-right extremism online could damage civil liberties, critics warn.
By JANOSCH
DELCKER 2/21/20, 5:54 PM CET Updated 2/21/20, 6:22 PM CET
BERLIN —
Germany is cracking down on hate speech online amid a rise in right-wing
extremism, but critics warn that civil liberties will end up as collateral
damage.
Hours
before a far-right extremist shot nine people dead at two hookah bars in
central Germany on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government passed the
first of two laws to further toughen its rules — already considered some of the
world's strictest — governing speech online.
“Hate
crimes should finally end up where they belong — in court,” said the Social
Democrat Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht after the bill was approved by
the government.
The draft
law will force social media companies to proactively report potentially
criminal content on their platforms to law enforcement.
While
Lambrecht's government argues the measures are needed to counter a rise in
right-wing extremism proliferating online, however, an unlikely alliance of
opponents are sounding the alarm on potential damages to civil liberties.
Berlin's
hate speech law provides a major test case of cracking down on hate speech
online.
“There is
no question that our society has a problem with right-wing extremism and hate
speech," said Elisabeth Niekrenz of Berlin-based civil liberties
organization Digitale Gesellschaft (Digital Society), "which deeply
worries me. But the measures presented [by Lambrecht] infringe people's right
to informational self-determination, open the door for more surveillance, grant
law enforcement more powers to intervene and allow for more data collection.”
Niekrenz’s
organization is one of 13 signatories of an open letter to Lambrecht earlier
this month which called the new hate speech rules "an enormous danger to
civil liberties." Other signatories include Germany’s journalists' union,
the German Informatics Society, as well as lobbying organizations for the tech
industry such as the Association of the Internet Industry (eco), which counts
Facebook, Google and Twitter among its members.
Niekrenz
added that while her organization's interests were opposed to those of Big Tech
“in many areas”, for example on the handling of user data, "it’s fair to
say that here, the big platforms are pushed into a peculiar role in which
they're supposed to play deputy sheriffs and have to decide what’s lawful and
what isn’t.”
"This
doesn’t bother me because I feel sorry for Facebook or Google having to do the
work, but because I am concerned about the societal consequences,” she added.
The German
justice ministry denied a request to reply to their criticism, citing a policy
of not commenting on open letters.
Berlin's
hate speech law also provides a major test case of cracking down on hate speech
online at a time when the European Commission is examining new rules for
policing content online — and looking closely at how Germany, France and the United Kingdom are
handling the matter.
The uproar
in Germany underscores how challenging the regulation of online content is for
democratic countries. Critics warn in particular that well-meaning efforts in
Europe could provide a template for censorship of political opponents in
autocratic countries.
Lambrecht
hinted, however, that Berlin's rulebook could serve as a role model for other
EU countries. Following a meeting earlier this month with colleagues from the
Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Spain and Italy, she said that Germany will
push for cooperation and “new European rules” to fight online hate speech
during its rotating presidency of the EU starting this summer.
“In many
European countries, populists and extremists are rioting against democracy,
dissenters and minorities,” she said. “The platforms are the same, and the
racist and anti-Semitic messages are similar.”
What
defines ‘hate’?
Germany's
efforts to snuff out online hate speech passed a milestone in the summer of
2017, when parliament passed its Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG).
The law
forces large social media platforms to delete potential criminal content,
sometimes within as little as 24 hours. It also requires them to provide law
enforcement agencies with user data in certain cases.
From its
onset, however, critics warned that the pioneering rulebook — the first major
effect of a Western democracy to reign in hate speech online — had weaknesses.
That’s
largely because fighting "hate speech" is easier said than done,
legal experts caution, not least because "hate" is not, per se,
considered a criminal offense. For every case of a reported "hate
speech," prosecutors need to decide whether and under which law it
constitutes a criminal offense.
A second
law, which is in an earlier stage, aims to make it easier for users to report
illegal content and challenge content decisions by internet platforms.
While in
some cases, German criminal law is straightforward — leaving no doubt, for
example, that denying the Holocaust is a crime — it's more ambiguous in other
areas. Deciding if a post qualifies as Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred)
is one such instance.
NetzDG has
so far primarily made sure that illegal content is deleted at a higher rate
than in other countries, but it does little to hold the authors of harmful
content legally accountable.
This is
what Justice Minister Lambrecht aims to tackle with this week's law, which
forces platforms to report illegal content themselves. The bill still needs to
pass both chambers of parliament before taking effect.
A second
law, which is in an earlier stage, aims to make it easier for users to report
illegal content and challenge content decisions by internet platforms. It also
requires companies to disclose more information than was previously required in
their biannual transparency reports, including details about which groups of
people are particularly affected by hate speech or how companies are using
artificial intelligence to detect harmful content.
The latter
two points are especially worrying for civil liberties advocates like Elisabeth
Niekrenz.
She said it
would lead to an increase in sensitive data being shared and stored by
platforms, and encourage companies to automate content moderation.
Google,
Facebook and Twitter declined to comment for this article.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário