Preventing/Tackling Online Hate Speech and Discrimination through an Inter-legal Approach to Law in the Current Internet Governance. A European Perspective
Location
Bigfoot Room 124
Start Date
22-4-2023 10:30 AM
End Date
22-4-2023 11:45 AM
Publication Date
2023
Disciplines
Arts and Humanities | Law | Social and Behavioral Sciences
Description
The contestation of States’ sovereignty as the only source of law relies on a well-established body of literature. The “boundless” nature of the Web – considered “the network of networks” (Fiorinelli 2021, p. 405) – would have suggested that States would promptly converge towards global agreements on the legal protection against online hate speech and discrimination, a step that still seems hard to take. This is mainly due (though not limited) to two different orientations on the matter: the former one— guiding large platforms and, more broadly, the so-called U.S. approach – is based on the liberal “Marketplace of ideas” theory and extensively interprets the protection of freedom of speech; the latter one is the so-defined European approach to illegal contents, which admits justified limitations of freedom of speech that infringes other fundamental rights (Just 2022; Lee 2010; Rosen 2012; Waldron 2012).
These two approaches influence both the substantive protection against hate speech and discrimination as well as the Internet governance. In fact, today’s legal scenario appears to be still fragmented and, at the same time, very dynamic in the attempt to strike a balance between freedom of speech and tackling online hate speech and discrimination. It may be observed that this sphere is characterised by both centripetal trends (towards UN and CoE soft international governance and EU soft and hard supranational provisions) and centrifugal forces of some EU national legislations. Besides them, Platforms owners concur or even compete within these hybrid and polycentric legal spaces.
The metaphor of the transition from the “pyramidal system” to that (horizontal and
eterarchic) of the “net” elaborated by François Ost and Michel Van De Kerchove (2002) is particularly relevant for both the offline and online spheres. In such context, the interconnection between norms from multiple legal orders, all simultaneously applicable to concrete cases on the basis of the impact on the very case under scrutiny, is at the core of a recent conceptualisation of inter-legality in legal philosophy (Palombella 2019; Chiti, diMartino and Palombella 2021;) that departs from socio-legal scholar Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ original elaboration (interlegality).
The hypothesis guiding my reflection is that, in the lack of a universally recognised definition of on hate speech as well as of a global regulation of online communication, an inter-legal approach to tackling online hate speech and discrimination may provide tools to legal and non-legal actors in handling hate speech-related “cases” in a loose sense, including judicial and non-judicial ones. My assumption is that, due to the characteristics of online hate speech and discrimination, inter-legality may have a strong impact if it is operationalised in all facets – that is, not only by judges but by lawmakers, independent authorities on communication, and even platforms.
Description Format
html
Recommended Citation
Bello, Barbara, "Preventing/Tackling Online Hate Speech and Discrimination through an Inter-legal Approach to Law in the Current Internet Governance. A European Perspective" (2023). International Conference on Hate Studies. 51.
https://repository.gonzaga.edu/icohs/2023/seventh/51
Full Text of Presentation
wf_no
Media Format
flash_audio
Session Title
Linguistics Strategies for Spreading Hate Online and Ideas to Counter Hate Speech
Type
Panel
Preventing/Tackling Online Hate Speech and Discrimination through an Inter-legal Approach to Law in the Current Internet Governance. A European Perspective
Bigfoot Room 124
The contestation of States’ sovereignty as the only source of law relies on a well-established body of literature. The “boundless” nature of the Web – considered “the network of networks” (Fiorinelli 2021, p. 405) – would have suggested that States would promptly converge towards global agreements on the legal protection against online hate speech and discrimination, a step that still seems hard to take. This is mainly due (though not limited) to two different orientations on the matter: the former one— guiding large platforms and, more broadly, the so-called U.S. approach – is based on the liberal “Marketplace of ideas” theory and extensively interprets the protection of freedom of speech; the latter one is the so-defined European approach to illegal contents, which admits justified limitations of freedom of speech that infringes other fundamental rights (Just 2022; Lee 2010; Rosen 2012; Waldron 2012).
These two approaches influence both the substantive protection against hate speech and discrimination as well as the Internet governance. In fact, today’s legal scenario appears to be still fragmented and, at the same time, very dynamic in the attempt to strike a balance between freedom of speech and tackling online hate speech and discrimination. It may be observed that this sphere is characterised by both centripetal trends (towards UN and CoE soft international governance and EU soft and hard supranational provisions) and centrifugal forces of some EU national legislations. Besides them, Platforms owners concur or even compete within these hybrid and polycentric legal spaces.
The metaphor of the transition from the “pyramidal system” to that (horizontal and
eterarchic) of the “net” elaborated by François Ost and Michel Van De Kerchove (2002) is particularly relevant for both the offline and online spheres. In such context, the interconnection between norms from multiple legal orders, all simultaneously applicable to concrete cases on the basis of the impact on the very case under scrutiny, is at the core of a recent conceptualisation of inter-legality in legal philosophy (Palombella 2019; Chiti, diMartino and Palombella 2021;) that departs from socio-legal scholar Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ original elaboration (interlegality).
The hypothesis guiding my reflection is that, in the lack of a universally recognised definition of on hate speech as well as of a global regulation of online communication, an inter-legal approach to tackling online hate speech and discrimination may provide tools to legal and non-legal actors in handling hate speech-related “cases” in a loose sense, including judicial and non-judicial ones. My assumption is that, due to the characteristics of online hate speech and discrimination, inter-legality may have a strong impact if it is operationalised in all facets – that is, not only by judges but by lawmakers, independent authorities on communication, and even platforms.