Paper for REDA

1. Hate Speech on the
Internet
Ioannis Iglezakis
Associate Professor,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

2. Dissemination of hate speech online
 The Internet allows extremists and
haters easier access to an expectedly
big audience.
 In 2011 more than 14,000 problematic
websites, forums, blogs, social media
postings

3. Definition of Hate Speech
[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]
It covers all forms of expression which spread, incite,
promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-
Semitism or other forms of hatred based on
intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by
aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism,
discrimination and hostility against minorities,
migrants and people of immigrant origin.

4. International & EU Law
 Additional Protocol to the Convention on
Cybercrime concerning the criminalisation of
acts of a racist and xenophobic nature
committed through computer systems.
 EU Joint Action concerning action to combat
and xenophobia (96/443/JHA)
 EU Council Framework Decision
2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms
and expressions of racism and xenophobia by
means of criminal law

5. Additional Protocol
Measures to be taken at national level
 Article 3 – Dissemination of racist and
xenophobic material through computer
systems
 Article 4 – Racist and xenophobic motivated
threat
 Article 5 – Racist and xenophobic motivated
insult
 Article 6 –Denial, gross minimisation,
approval or justification of genocide or crimes
against humanity

6. EU Legal Acts
 Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action
to combat and xenophobia (96/443/JHA)
 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA
on combating certain forms and expressions
of racism and xenophobia by means of
criminal law ---> EU Member States shall take
the necessary measures to ensure the
criminalization of the following acts:

7. Council Framework Decision
2008/913/JHA
 (a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a
group of persons or a member of such a group defined by
reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic
origin;
 (b) the commission of an act referred to in point (a) by public
dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material;
 (c) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as;
 (d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the above
crimes when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to
incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of
such a group.

8. Conflict with constitutional rights
 ECHR (Gündüz v. Turkey): it may be
considered necessary in certain democratic
societies to sanction or even prevent all forms
of expression which spread, incite, promote
or justify hatred based on intolerance,
including religious intolerance, provided that
any “formalities”, “conditions”, “restrictions” or
“penalties” imposed are proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued

9. Conflicts
 The importance of the Internet as a
means to promote freedom of speech
 ECHR
case Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey
 case Mouvement raëlien suisse v.
Switzerland

10. Conclusion
 the prohibition and penalization of hate
speech on the Internet should be
without prejudice to the right of freedom
of expression
 legal measures against hate speech
may not be sufficient -> collaboration
with ISPs & technical measures