Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:26 pm
Time: 10:26 pm
Results for freedom of expression
6 results foundAuthor: Canadian Human Rights Commission Title: Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Hate in the Internet Age Summary: This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a current debate: what is the most effective way to prevent the harm caused by hate messages on the Internet, while respecting freedom of expression? Details: Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government, 2009. 58p. Source: Special Report to Parliament Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 118364 Keywords: Drug TraffickingFreedom of ExpressionGun-Related ViolenceHate CrimesInternetOrganized CrimeViolence (Latin America)Violent Crime |
Author: Corn-Revere, Robert Title: Hate Speech Laws: Ratifying the Assassin's Veto Summary: Recently criticisms of religion have been met by violence and threats of violence, the most infamous being the murder in Paris of several editors of the satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo. The phenomenon of killing or threatening to kill those who insult you or your way of life has come to be known as the assassin's veto. These events raise anew a basic question for liberal societies: how much expression must a free society tolerate? The United States Supreme Court has generally restricted government limits on speech. Some speech, however, does not receive protection, including expressions closely tied to violence. In the past, "fighting words" were judged unprotected by the First Amendment; the development of Court doctrine has largely eliminated this exception. American jurisprudence is based on the assumption that protections for freedom of expression will not long endure if they can be abandoned when the message is particularly repellant or its target especially sympathetic. European law also protects freedom of expression, although in a less robust way than does U.S. law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights subjects freedom of speech to important limitations understood generally as "hate speech." In contrast to the United States, officials may apply criminal or civil sanctions to prohibited political advocacy. The United States faces a choice. Should it defend the right to offend, or opt instead to champion a right not to be offended? We have learned from hard experience in the United States that free expression cannot long survive without protecting outrageous and offensive speech. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2016 at: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa791.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa791.pdf Shelf Number: 139541 Keywords: Freedom of ExpressionHate CrimesHate Speech |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Deepening the Culture of Fear: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Malayasia Summary: Malaysia's use of criminal laws to arrest, question, and prosecute individuals for peaceful speech and assembly has deepened in the year since Human Rights Watch published Creating a Culture of Fear: The Criminalization of Expression in Malaysia in October 2015. The Malaysian authorities have moved forward with the prosecutions of many of those featured in that report, and continue to use the overly broad and vaguely worded criminal laws identified there to harass, arrest, and prosecute those critical of the government or of members of Malaysia's royal families. The Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) remain the laws most frequently used against critical speech in Malaysia. Those criticizing the administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak or commenting on the government's handling of a major corruption scandal have been particular targets. The long-running corruption scandal involving the government-owned investment fund 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has prompted calls from politicians, civil society activists, and commentators for Prime Minster Najib to resign from office. Rather than treating such statements as part of normal give-and-take in a democratic society, the Malaysian authorities have treated such speech as criminal, investigating those involved for sedition, "activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy," and violations of the Communications and Multimedia Act. Similarly, the government has pursued those making comments on social media deemed "insulting" to Najib or members of royal families with criminal investigations and charges under the Sedition Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, and provisions of the penal code. The government has also continued to prosecute individuals for exercising their right to peaceful assembly under Malaysia's overly restrictive Peaceful Assembly Act, and has used the Official Secrets Act to shield reports on the 1MDB scandal from public view. Rather than amending the laws to bring them into line with international legal standards, as recommended in Human Rights Watch's 2015 report, the Malaysian government has moved in the opposite direction by suggesting it would strengthen some of the rights-offending laws, particularly those that can be used against speech on social media. Human Rights Watch reiterates its call for the Malaysian government to cease using criminal laws against peaceful speech and assembly, and to bring its laws and policies into line with international human rights law and standards for the protection of freedom of expression and assembly. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/malaysia1016_web_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Malaysia URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/malaysia1016_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 145088 Keywords: Freedom of ExpressionFreedom of SpeechHuman Rights AbusesProtests |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Harassed, Imprisoned, Exiled: Azerbaijan's Continuing Crackdown on Government Critics, Lawyers, and Civil Society Summary: The Azerbaijani authorities are waging a vicious crackdown on critics and dissenting voices. The space for independent activism, critical journalism, and opposition political activity has been virtually extinguished by the arrests and convictions of many activists, human rights defenders, and journalists, as well as by laws and regulations restricting independent groups' activities and ability to secure funding. Independent civil society in Azerbaijan is struggling to survive. "Harassed, Imprisoned, Exiled" is based on more than 90 interviews and documents the government's concerted efforts to paralyze civil society and punish those who criticize or challenge the government. Although in early 2016 the government released several wrongly imprisoned activists, many remain behind bars and the authorities have arrested others to prevent them from carrying out their legitimate work. None of those released had their convictions lifted, several face travel restrictions, others left the country fearing further politically motivated prosecution, or had to halt their work because of almost insurmountable bureaucratic hurdles to access funding. The report calls on the Azerbaijani government to immediately and unconditionally release those held on politically motivated charges, end harassment and threats against civil society and media, and ensure the civil society groups can operate without undue hindrance, including by repealing restrictions on access to non-state sources of funding, including foreign grants. It calls on Azerbaijan's international partners to set clear benchmarks for human rights improvements and impose concrete policy consequences should those requirements not be met. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/azerbaijan1016_web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Azerbaijan URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/azerbaijan1016_web.pdf Shelf Number: 140809 Keywords: Freedom of ExpressionHuman Rights Abuses |
Author: Article 19 Title: Self-regulation and 'hate speech' on social media platforms Summary: In this brief, ARTICLE 19 seeks to contribute to discussions on greater regulation of social media platforms, including calls for such platforms to be considered publishers. We do so by exploring a possible model for the independent and effective self-regulation of social media platforms. ARTICLE 19 recognises that dominant social media companies hold considerable power over the flow of information and ideas online, given the vast quantities of content published on their platforms. The way in which social media companies have dealt with content issues on their platforms, especially around 'hate speech', has been of particular concern to many stakeholders. Under international standards on freedom of expression, however, it is a fairly complex task to decide whether a specific message can be identified as unlawful 'hate speech', and, as such, whether it should or could legitimately be prohibited. More generally, any restriction on freedom of expression, whatever the objective it seeks to achieve, necessarily raises a series of legal questions. Traditionally, international freedom of expression standards allow for different types of media regulation, based on the type of media. A model of self-regulation has been the preferred approach to print media. It is considered the least restrictive means available by which the press can be effectively regulated, and the best system for promoting ethical standards in the media. Importantly, the existence of an effective self-regulation mechanism can also reduce pressure on the courts and the judiciary. Generally, when a problem is effectively managed through self-regulation, the need for state regulation is eliminated. A number of recent legislative initiatives on 'hate speech', including most prominently the 2017 German NetzDG law on social media, make reference to some forms of self-regulation. Voluntary mechanisms between digital companies and various public bodies addressing 'hate speech' and other issues, such as the EU Code of Conduct on hate speech, also make reference to self-regulatory models. However, our analysis of these mechanisms demonstrates that they fail to comply with the requirements of international human rights law. They rely on vague and overbroad terms to identify unlawful content, they delegate censorship responsibilities to social media companies with no real consideration of the lawfulness of content, and they fail to provide due process guarantees. ARTICLE 19 therefore suggests exploring a new model of effective self-regulation for social media. This model could take the form of a dedicated "social media council" - inspired by the effective self-regulation models created to support and promote journalistic ethics and high standards in print media. We believe that effective selfregulation could offer an appropriate framework through which to address the current problems with content moderation by social media companies, including 'hate speech' on their platforms, providing it also meets certain conditions of independence, openness to civil society participation, accountability and effectiveness. Such a model could also allow for adoption of tailored remedies without the threat of heavy legal sanctions. In this brief we explore the issues that would need to be taken into account when considering such a mechanism, in greater detail. The brief also reinforces ARTICLE 19 recommendations on freedom of expression-compliant approaches to intermediary liability models. In the first section, ARTICLE 19 outlines relevant international standards in this area. In the second section, we look at existing models of media regulation and in particular, models of self-regulation. In order to respond to calls of whether social media companies can be considered publishers, we also explore the role played by social media platforms as compared to traditional or legacy media. We then briefly examine the current problems related to how social media companies deal with content on their platforms. Finally, we provide some suggestions as to what a new model for effective self-regulation of social media companies could look like. This model could be applied to 'hate speech' appearing on social media platforms, but could also provide an appropriate forum to elaborate ethical standards for social media platforms in general, provide remedies, and identify ways to enable exercise of the right to freedom of expression on social media platforms. ARTICLE 19 acknowledges that the realisation of this self-regulation model may raise practical challenges and problems. However, we believe that these problems, albeit complex, should be further debated and explored. In today's digital societies, there is a pressing social need to establish appropriate forums of this kind. We believe it is important to collectively engage more broadly on these issues, which are of major importance to the protection of the right to freedom of expression and human rights in digital environments. Details: London: Article 19, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9,. 2018 at: http://europeanjournalists.org/mediaagainsthate/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Self-regulation-and-%E2%80%98hate-speech%E2%80%99-on-social-media-platforms_final_digital.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: http://europeanjournalists.org/mediaagainsthate/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Self-regulation-and-%E2%80%98hate-speech%E2%80%99-on-social-media-platforms_final_digital.pdf Shelf Number: 150790 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crimes Freedom of ExpressionHate Speech Online Victimization Social Media |
Author: Hinoposa, Gina Title: Turning the Tide on Impunity: Protection and Access to Justice for Journalists and Human Rights Defenders in Mexico Summary: KEY FINDINGS - Protection measures provided through Mexico's Mechanism to Protect Human Rights Defenders and Journalists are often insufficient. The Mechanism has been unable to develop risk analysis protocols that effectively identify the different needs of female, rural, indigenous, and other particularly vulnerable journalists and defenders when it comes to receiving protections. Protection measures are often unreliable, are not adequately implemented, and do not take into account realities on the ground in different parts of the country. In some cases, they have been unable to provide sufficient protection: six Mechanism beneficiaries have been murdered since August 2017. - The Mechanism suffers from a serious lack of adequate staffing and budget levels. There are only 35 Mechanism personnel overseeing the protection of 831 journalists and human rights defenders. Despite this context, Mexico's 2019 budget cut funds to the Ministry of the Interior"s Human Rights Unit-which finances the Mechanism's staff salaries-by over USD$610,500, meaning additional staff will likely not be hired in 2019. Moreover, while the Mechanism spent approximately $13.6 million on the implementation of protection measures in 2018, Mexico's Congress only allocated up to $10.9 million for protection measures in the 2019 budget. - The Mechanism has made progress in developing strategies that go beyond providing immediate protection to journalists and human rights defenders. Experiences in the state of Chihuahua could serve as a model for developing comprehensive prevention strategies that are more comprehensive and more attuned to local contexts. Since 2016, Mechanism officials have been working alongside Chihuahua's state government, national and international human rights bodies, and local civil society groups to develop a Contingency Plan focused on addressing the root causes of violence against journalists and human rights defenders in that state. - Mexican authorities are frequently identified as the perpetrators behind crimes against journalists and human rights defenders. Public officials were determined to be the likely aggressors in 39 percent of cases the Mechanism has overseen. Similarly, "abuse of authority" was the second-most common crime reported by prosecutor's offices that provided us with statistics on these crimes, pointing to how frequently public officials and security forces are involved in attacks. This helps to explain why many investigations into crimes against journalists and human rights defenders lack credibility and impartiality, particularly at the state level. - The Mexican government's failure to properly investigate and sanction crimes against journalists and human rights defenders has left these groups open to attack. Between 2012 and June 2018, only three percent of investigations opened by the state prosecutor's offices analyzed by WOLA and PBI made it to the courts. Of the 1,077 cases investigated by the federal-level Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) during that period, less than 12 percent were taken to court. Only five FEADLE cases-less than one percent-resulted in convictions. Aside from its overall poor track record in prosecuting cases, FEADLE rarely takes advantage of its power to take investigations out of the hands of state prosecutor's offices when state authorities are not handling the cases with due diligence. - FEADLE's capacity to fulfill its mandate has been severely limited by a lack of human and financial resources. The agency's budget has been reduced by 54 percent since 2014, from over USD$2 million to around $942,000. The office only has 22 prosecutors and 15 investigative police officers on staff. - Many prosecutor's offices in Mexico do not maintain quality criminal statistics that could aid in criminal analysis and strengthen prosecutorial oversight. Without systematized databases with reliable statistics on crimes against journalists and human rights defenders, prosecutors are unable to draw patterns and connections between cases, or identify any common modus operandi used to target victims. Some offices do not track the status and results of their investigations, such as the outcome of cases that are tried in court. This makes it difficult for authorities to identify and rectify gaps in their investigative practices and processes, and makes clear that prosecutors in these offices are not being evaluated based on their performance. - Some law enforcement institutions often devote valuable time and resources toward discrediting and criminalizing the work of journalists and human rights defenders, rather than guaranteeing their protection. There is a clear pattern of Mexican authorities misusing criminal legislation to criminalize activists and media workers. In Chihuahua state, for example, we found that over the period reviewed for this report, the number of cases in which authorities deemed journalists to be the alleged aggressors was more than double the number of cases opened into crimes committed against them. - The U.S. government continues to provide significant funds to support the Protection Mechanism and to strengthen investigations into crimes against journalists and human rights defenders. In September 2017, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) initiated a USD$7.1 million project called ProVoces. ProVoces consultants have provided trainings, mentorship, and technical assistance to the Mexican agencies charged with addressing violence against journalists and defenders and aims to strengthen coordination between prosecutor's offices, federal and state-level protection mechanisms, and civil society organizations. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2019 at: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ENGLISH-WOLA-PBI-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ENGLISH-WOLA-PBI-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 155747 Keywords: Criminal InvestigationFreedom of ExpressionHomicidesHuman Rights DefendersJournalistsProsecutionProtection Measures |