![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Rising international concern about the problem of hate speech on the Internet has led to calls for greater regulation. The Internet is arguably a true marketplace of ideas but one where ‘dangerous words’ may have a disproportionate impact. The paper suggests that looking to historical parallels can offer a more fruitful and workable solution moving beyond the current temptation of knee-jerk legislative responses and regulation; and one more universally acceptable. Locke's philosophical argument for free speech, for instance, delivered against a background of seventeenth-century religious intolerance and perceived sedition, provides interesting analogies to the current problem in relation to terrorism. We question whether current legal approaches to hate speech are practical and appropriate, and the extent to which the transposition of ‘real life’ regulation can be imposed onto ‘virtual life’ regulation. Is the Internet in fact a qualitatively different form of communication which renders Lockean principles, and their subsequent interpretations, powerless in the face of hate speech? The repressive extension of the law to criminalise the expression of ideas deemed offensive raises key issues relating to the problem of veracity and authenticity of Internet content. Not least that the legal enforcement of any such regulation may require an unacceptable level of State intrusion into personal communication and privacy. Drawing on the historical perspective reminds us that censorship is the enemy of democratic values and that while calls for censorship of hate speech on the Internet may appear superficially attractive, there are dangerous implications and undercurrents for our hard won liberties.
Notes
1. Barrell, J., & Mee, J. (Eds.). (2006). Trials for treason and sedition, 1792–1794. London: Pickering and Chatto.
2. Gronbeck, B. (2004). The USA Patriot Act: Coming to terms with silenced voices. Javnost, 11(2), 37–48.
3. On the difficulties of defining and conceptualising hate crime see, for example, Hall, N. (2005). Hate crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. pp. 1–21.
4. Dahood, R. (2005). Punishment of the Jews, Hugh of Lincoln, and the question of satire in Chaucer's Prioress's tale. Viator, 36, 465–90. The myth appears also in folk songs and Shakespeare.
5. Fox, J. (1563). Book of martyrs (Chap. IV). Reproduced in J. King (2006). Fox's book of martyrs and early modern print culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Vincent, D. (1989). Literacy and popular culture: England 1750–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Male literacy, especially pre-1800, was higher than female literacy. See also Cressey, D. (1980). Literacy and the social order: Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Laurence, A., Owens, W., & Sim, S. (1990). John Bunyan and his England, 1628–1688. London: Continuum.
8. Hayes, N., & Hill, J. (1999). ‘Millions like us’: British culture in the Second World War. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
9. Harris, T. (1995). Propaganda and public opinion in Seventeenth Century England. In J.D. Popkin (Ed.). Media and revolution. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
10. Siebert, F. (1952). Freedom of the press, 1476–1776. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
11. See, for example, Rambo, E. (1994). Colonial Ireland in medieval English literature. Toronto: Associated University Presses; Canny, N.P. (2003). Making Ireland British, 1580–1650. London: Oxford University Press; Leerson, J.T. (1986). Mere Irish and Fíor-Ghael. Studies in the idea of Irish nationality, its literary expression and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Canny, Making Ireland British.
13. Durston, C. (1986). ‘Let Ireland be quiet’. Opposition in England to the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, History Workshop Journal, 21, 105–12.
14. Firth, C.H. (Ed.) (1894). The Clarke papers, Vol II. London: Camden Society New Series, 54, p. 205, 23.3 1648/9.
15. Durston, ‘Let Ireland be quiet’, p. 111.
16. See, for instance, Kleg, M. (1993). Hate, prejudice and racism. New York: SUNY Press; de Nie, M. (2004). The eternal Paddy: Irish identity and the British press 1798–1882. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; Felsenstein, F. (1999). Anti-Semitic stereotypes. A paradigm of otherness in English popular culture, 1660–1830. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
17. Censorship of pornography, however, has continued, and may be considered to be a rather different affair: that is not the concern of this article however.
18. Ginn, R. (2007). The politics of prayer in early modern Britain: Church and state in seventeenth-century England. International Library of Historical Studies, 48. London: I.B. Tauris.
19. Wood, E.M., & Wood, N. (1997). A trumpet of sedition: Political theory & the rise of capitalism, 1509–1688. New York: New York University Press. p. 20. See also Hill, C. (1980). The century of revolution 1603–1714. New York: Norton and Co; Cressey, D. (2006). England on edge; Crisis and revolution 1640–1642. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Szechi, D. (1994). The Jacobites. Britain and Europe 1688–1788. Manchester: Manchester University Press. This latter text underlines that if the issue was largely settled in the UK, it was not until the French Revolution and its aftermath that this was the case elsewhere in Europe.
20. Edwards, T. (1646). Gangraena. I, pp. 153–154, as cited in Hill, C. (1982). The world turned upside down. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, p. 98.
21. Cressey, D. (2006). England on edge, p. 282.
22. Ibid., pp. 282–283.
23. The Star Chamber on printing, 1637. Historical collections of private passages of state: Volume 3: 1639–1640, pp. 306–316. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from https://www. british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74953
24. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990). A characteristic of appearing before the Star Chamber was that it forced the defendant to incriminate him/herself
25. The irony is that James' Declaration was intended to promote religious tolerance. The importance of the failure of the trial of the Bishops is that it constitutes the first rejection by a jury of what it considered an ‘unjust’ law. See Gibson, W. (in press). James II and the trial of the seven Bishops. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
26. Locke, J. (1689, reprinted 2002). A letter concerning toleration. New York: Dover Publications, p. 140.
27. Jefferson, T. (1779). Revisal of the laws: Drafts of legislation. A bill for establishing religious freedom, Public Papers 1743–1826. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff3.htm
28. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
29. See Persak, N. (2007). Criminalising harmful conduct: The harm principle, its limits and continental counterparts. London: Springer. Mill, though, was something of a sceptic on the notion of an ‘inevitable victory’ for truth over persecution, describing it as ‘one of those pleasant falsehoods’, see Mill, J.S. (1859, reprinted 1998). On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 33.
30. Handyside v. UK [1976] ECHR 5, at 49.
31. Locke, A letter concerning toleration, p. 126.
32. Netenal, N.W. (2000). Cyberspace self-governance: A skeptical view from Liberal democratic theory. Californian Law Review, 88(March), 395–498.
33. Lowenstein, K. (1937). Militant democracy and fundamental rights. American Political Science Review, 37, 417–657.
34. Rensmann, T. (2003). Procedural fairness in a militant democracy: The ‘uprising of the decent’ fails before the federal Constitutional Court. German Law Journal, 4(11), para. 1.
35. See Macklem, P. (2006). Militant democracy, legal pluralism and the paradox of self-determination. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(3), 488–516.
36. Braun, D. TechWeb News, 21 October 1997. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.cyber-rights.org/censorship/hate.htm
37. Hatewatch. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.splcenter.org/blog/
38. Its ninth Annual Report, Digital terrorism and hate, identified nearly 7,000 ‘problematic’ websites, blogs, newsgroups, YouTube and on-demand video sites. Simon Wiesenthal Center, Digital terrorism and hate 2007. Interactive report. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fwLYKn N8LzH&b=253162&ct=3876867
39. Council of Europe, ETS no.189, Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems.
40. Rensmann, T. (2003). Procedural fairness in a militant democracy, para. 7.
41. Evans, R. (2001). Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving trial. New York: Basic Books.
42. Khair, T. (2008, August 12). A tarnished jewel. The Guardian. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/12/islam.religion; see also http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/leaflets/more-insults-to-come-against-our-beloved-prophet-saw.html, retrieved October 4, 2008.
43. Clarke, B. (2007). Freedom of speech and criticism of religion: What are the limits? Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 14(2), 94–121.
44. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1186 (D. Or. 1998) – the material was held to be ‘true threats’ and thus not protected speech; Seymour, J. (2005). Who can be harassed? Claims against animal rights protestors under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1977. Cambridge Law Journal, 64(1) 57–65.
45. Death threats dog female blogger. March 28, 2007. Retrieved 18 August, 2008, from the Salon website http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/03/28/kathy_sierra/index.html; Walsh, J. (2007). Men who hate women on the Web. Retrieved 18 August, 2008, from http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/sierra/
46. See Peter Tatchell's website http://www.petertatchell.net/international/nigeriagaylaw.htm. Retrieved October 4, 2008; also Reddy, V. (2002). Perverts and sodomites: Homophobia as hate speech in Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20(3), 163–175.
47. For example, MacDougall, B. (2000). Queer judgements: Homosexuality, expression and the courts in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; Guidance on prosecuting cases of homophobic and transphobic crime (2007). London: Crown Prosecution Service.
48. McDowell, G., & O'Neill, J. (Eds.). (2006). America and enlightenment constitutionalism. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. See also Bailyn, B. (1992). The ideological origins of the American Revolution, revised edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 27–28.
49. McDowell & O'Neill, America; Bailyn, Ideological origins, pp. 324–325.
50. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) (dissenting judgement).
51. Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (concurring judgement).
52. Watson, W.W. (1996). The Supreme Court defines the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 40–52.
53. See Walker, S. (1994). Hate speech: The history of an American controversy. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, Chap. 3.
54. ACLU, Shall we defend free speech for Nazis in America? (1934). As cited in Walker, Hate speech, p. 42.
55. State v. Klapprott, 22 A. 2d 877 (1941).
56. Including words ‘which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
57. E.g. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); for further discussion see Walker, Hate speech, Chap. 4.
58. Walker, Hate speech. p. 101.
59. Collin v. Smith, 578 F. 2d 1197 (1978) N.B. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
60. Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D.Mich. 1989); UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991).
61. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
62. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 L. Ed. 2d 305 (June 1992).
63. Walker. Hate speech, p. 13.
64. Jacobs, J.B., & Potter, K. (1998). Hate crimes: Criminal law and identity politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 66.
65. Reno v. ACLU 136 L Ed 2d 436 (1997).
66. James v. Commonwealth of Australia [1936] AC 578.
67. S.3.
68. S.6.
69. Art.10(2): in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
70. S.1(1).
71. S.4 POA 1936.
72. S.5.
73. Ss.18–23.
74. S.2(1).
75. S.4(1).
76. S.29(1).
77. S.30(1).
78. S.31(1).
79. S.32(1).
80. Abu Hamza convicted of 11 charges. CPS Press Release. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2006/105_06.html
81. See Bryan, I. (2007). Unpalatable in word or deed: Hostility, difference and free expression. Crimes and Misdemeanours, 1(2), 126–153.
82. S.74 amending s3A POA1986.
83. Ford, R., & Gibb, F. (2007, November 26). Attorney-General set to scupper plans to make gay hate a crime. The Times.
84. [1997] 2 All ER 548.
85. Lloyd, I.J. (1997). Information technology law (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths, p. 221.
86. Brugger, W. (2002). The treatment of hate speech in German constitutional law (Part 1). German Law Journal, 3(12).
87. Brugger, W. The treatment of hate speech in German constitutional law.
88. S.185–200 German Federal Penal Code.
89. S.86 Penal Code.
90. S.130 Penal Code.
91. Kettman, S. (December 15, 2000). German hate law: No denying It. Wired News. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669
92. Schumacher, P.H. (2004). Fighting illegal Internet content – May access providers be required to ban foreign websites? A recent German approach. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 8(Winter).
93. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (LICRA) and L'Union des Estudiant Juif de France v. Yahoo! Inc. (USA), Yahoo! France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (The County Court of Paris), Interim Court Order, 20 November, 2000; see Akdeniz, Y.(2001). Case analysis of League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), French Union of Jewish Students, v. Yahoo! Inc. (USA), Yahoo France. Electronic Business Law Reports, 1(3), 110–20.
94. Yahoo!, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme and L'Union des Estudiant Juif de France, amicus brief, Appeal No. 01-17424 in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Retrieved September 25, 2008, BSLaw.net website. Available at http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/20040913_Yahoo_Rehearing_Amicus.pdf
95. Berezovsky v. Michaels [2000] 2 All ER 986.
96. On global tort theory, see Bainbridge, D.I. (2008). Introduction to information technology law (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 390–391.
97. Dow Jones & Co Inc. v. Gutnick [2002] HCA 56.
98. Verkaik, R. (2008, August 14). Britain's libel laws are stifling free speech. The Independent.
99. For a more detailed discussion of the jurisdiction problem, see Saadat, M. (2005). Jurisdiction and the Internet after Gutnick and Yahoo!. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology 1(1). Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_1/saadat/
100. See e.g. Art.19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the qualifications in Art.29; also Arts. 18 and 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1966) Arts 2 and 3.
101. Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia, Luxembourg, 19 April 2007, 8665/07 (Presse 84) Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/newsWord/en/misc/93739.doc
102. Convention on Cybercrime (2001) Budapest, 23 XI 2001. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm
103. Akdeniz, Y. (2008). An advocacy handbook for the non governmental organisations: The Council of Europe's Cyber-Crime Convention 2001 and the additional protocol on the criminalisation of acts of a racist or xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.cyber-rights.org/cybercrime/coe_handbook_crcl.pdf
104. Explanatory report of the additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, Committee of Ministers, 7 November 2002. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/189.htm
105. Council of Europe ETS no.189, Additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime.
106. Explanatory report of the additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, para. 3.
107. Art.2.1.
108. Lehideux and Isorni v. France 24662/94 [1998] ECHR 90 (23 September 1998), at 47.
109. Esposito, G. (2002). Workshop on racist and xenophobic content on the Internet – Problems and solutions. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 7(Winter), 1–16.
110. Although at the time of writing the US has not signed or ratified it and the Bush administration has specifically refused to do so citing its conflict with free speech rights, see Archick, K. CRS Report for Congress – Cybercrime: The Council of Europe Convention (Order Code RS21208), September 28, 2006. Retrieved August 15, 2008, http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/RS21208_060928.pdf
111. Akdeniz, Y. An advocacy handbook for the non governmental organisations.
112. Peters, J.D. (2008). Courting the abyss: Free speech and the liberal tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
113. Goldsmith, J. (1998). Against cyberanarchy, Chicago Law Review, 65, 1239, cited in Saadat, M. (2005). Jurisdiction and the Internet after Gutnick and Yahoo!. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology. Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law2/elj/jilt/2005_1/saadat/
114. Saadat, M. Jurisdiction and the Internet after Gutnick and Yahoo!, p. 2.
115. Post, D. (2002). Against cyberanarchy. Berkley Technology Law Journal, 17, 1365–1387, at 1371.
116. Netcraft web server survey (2008, August). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
117. Cressey, England on edge, p. 292. Re-imposition of actual censorship, which lapsed in 1695, was rejected in favour of economic controls due to fears of revolution.
118. Cressey, p. 336.
119. Ibid, p. 295; also Freist, D. (1997). Governed by opinion: Politics, religion and the dynamics of communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645. London: I. B. Tauris.
120. Joad, R. (2005). The invention of the English newspaper: English newsbooks 1641–1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 127.
121. Loewenstein, J. (2002). The author's due. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 201–203.
122. Prosser, T., Goldberg, D., & Verhulst, S. (1996). The impact of new communications technologies on media concentrations and pluralism. Report for the Committee of Experts on Media Concentrations and Pluralism of the Council of Europe, IMPS School of Law, August, p. 1.
123. Ibid.
124. Perma Research & Development v. Singer, 542 F 2d 111 (2d Cir) 429 US 987 (1974) (dissenting judgement).
125. Tim Berners Lee, in an interview with the BBC, November 2, 2006. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6108578.stm
126. There are an estimated 10,000 websites dealing with health and medicine: see Brown, D. (22 August, 1999). Seeing the doctor through the keyboard. Washington Post.
128. Thomas, D. (April 8, 1999). How to create a hoax. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://ojr.usc.edu/sections/departments/99_stories/hacker_040899.htm
129. See, for example, Mintz, A. (Ed.). (2002). Web of deception: Misinformation on the Internet. Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books.
130. Territorial enterprise, 28 October 1863. Mark Twain ‘shopped’ himself, Twain, M. (1875). Sketches new and old. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Empire_City_Massacre/. For a modern example, see Charleston v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65.
131. For photographic fakery, for example, see Lester, P.M. (1988). Faking images in photojournalism. Media Development, 1, 41–42. Available at http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/faking.html
132. Ibid.
133. Bearman, D. (1995). Archiving and authenticity. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.ahip.getty.edu/agenda/archiving.html
134. Ibid.
135. Gorman, M. (1995). The corruption of cataloging. Library Journal, 120, in: Rettig, J. (1995). Putting the squeeze on the information firehose: The need for ‘Neteditors’ and ‘Netreviewers’. College of William & Mary. Available at http://www.swem.wm.edu/firehose.html
136. Inman, J.A., & Inman, R.R. (1996). Responsibility as an issue in Internet communication: Reading flames as defamation. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 1(5). Available at http://journal.law.ufl.edu/∼techlaw/1/inman.html
137. Although we should not underestimate the power of communal ‘self-moderation’ in established Internet fora.
138. See Walsham, A. (2006). Charitable hatred: Tolerance and intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press. By contrast, Murphy argues for a difference in the intensity of opinions on toleration then held, though this is more convincing for the eighteenth century than the seventeenth century and here the authors concur. See Murphy, A. (2001). Conscience and community. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
139. Linebaugh, P., & Rediker, M. (2000). The many-headed Hydra: Sailors, slaves, commoners and the hidden history of the revolutionary Atlantic. Boston: Beacon Press.
140. Curtis, P., & Lipsett, A. (2008, May 31). This is not the way I should have been treated in a country I love. The Guardian.
141. Dawar, A. (2008, May 28). Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology ‘cult’. The Guardian.
142. World Information Access Report 2008 at O'Donnell, C. International arrests of citizen bloggers more than triple. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=42417
143. JPR (2000). Combating Holocaust denial through law in the United Kingdom Report No.3. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm
144. Wolf, C. (2006). 3rd International Symposium on Hate on the Internet, sponsored by B'nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs, Toronto September 12, 2006. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.adl.org/main_internet_hate_law.htm
145. Gall, D. (2004). The discussion should not aim on what is morally desirable, but should instead focus on what can actually be done, OSCE meeting in Paris on the relationship between racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and hates crimes, 17 June 2004. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.haGalil.com/antisemitismus/Internet/hate-speech-p.htm
146. Graham, I. (1998, November 10). In an open letter to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of Australia, reported at Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR981110.html
147. Jacobs & Potter, Hate crimes: Criminal law and identity politics, p. 131.
148. Craven, J. (1998). Extremism and the Internet (EMAIN), Work in Progress. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 1, 3. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_1/craven/