DOCSLIB.ORG

Online Hate Speech Regulation in the European Union and Germany

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Online Hate Speech Regulation in the European Union and Germany Online hate speech regulation in the European Union and Germany Candidate number: 7024 Submission deadline: December 1 st , 2018 Number of words: 17743 List of abbreviations AI Artificial Intelligence BL Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht, i.e. German Constitutional Court CoC Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate speech online COM European Commission CSO Civil Society Organizations ECHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union EU Charter Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union NEA Network Enforcement Act TMG Telemediengesetz I Table of content 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 WHAT IS ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH AND HOW IS IT RELATED TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ..................................................... 1 1.2 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 6 2 TACKLING ONLINE HATE SPEECH – THE FRAMEWORK IN THE EU ............................................................ 9 2.1 The E-Commerce Directive ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 The Framework Decision .................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 The Terrorism Directive ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 SOFT LAW REGULATION , IN PARTICULAR THE CODE OF CONDUCT ........................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online .......................................................... 17 2.4.2 Establishment of a notification, review and take-down process ................................................... 18 2.4.3 Safeguarding a functioning review process by employing special trained teams ......................... 19 2.4.4 Removal Period ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.5 Education of social network users ................................................................................................. 20 2.4.6 Entering into partnership with civil society organizations ............................................................ 20 2.4.7 Evaluation of the Code of Conduct ................................................................................................ 21 3 GERMAN ACT TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN SOCIAL NETWORKS (NETWORK ENFORCEMENT ACT) ...................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE NEA ........................................................................................................... 25 3.2 THE FRAMEWORK IN DETAIL ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 What is classified as unlawful content under the NEA .................................................................. 27 3.2.2 Blocking and removal of unlawful content .................................................................................... 29 3.2.3 Reporting Obligation ..................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.4 Independent supervisory institution and right to claim restoral of wrongful deleted content ..... 35 3.2.5 Possible interference with the freedom of expression, Art. 5(1) BL ............................................... 36 3.2.5.1 Scope of protection ................................................................................................................... 37 3.2.5.2 Constitutional Justification of the infringement ....................................................................... 37 3.2.6 Possible interference with the principle of equality, Art.3(1) BL ................................................... 39 3.2.7 Valuable final clauses .................................................................................................................... 39 3.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH EUROPEAN LAW , IN PARTICULAR WITH THE E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE ....................................... 40 3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE NEA .............................................................................................................. 42 4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 II 1 Introduction Social networks like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are steadily growing 1. As a result, the ever increasing number of users also increased the amount of user generated illegal content. This work is geared towards one critical aspect of online content: online hate speech. I focus on this because of its significant effect on society 2, the online debating culture and the democratic discourse on online platforms 3. It is also internationally perceived as a problem4. Even though social network providers became powerful representatives of the web 5, there is little regulation with regard to hate speech on social media platforms. As the work will show in next section, non-existent hate speech regulation can entail severe consequences. At the same time, regulation of illegal hate speech is a difficult topic, since regulating any form of speech generally puts the fundamental right of freedom of expression at stake. Initiatives to regulate hate speech (on social networks) are often controversial, since they aim for a difficult balance 6. On one hand illegal content should be prevented; however, on the over, this should not avert legal or even socially valuable communication 7. 1.1 What is illegal hate speech and how is it related to fundamental rights The term hate speech is often freely used without first explicitly defining it. This sometimes conveys the impression that the term is used as a political concept rather than as a precise scientific term. 8. That being said, accusing someone of using hate speech is a strong statement since often it is assumed the offender is being politically incorrect. However, not everything that is so-called hate speech is actually an offense or illegal. Assimakopoulos et al. provide a way to classify hate speech into either soft or hard hate speech 9. Using their approach, hard hate speech is a form of speech prosecutable and prohibited by law; whereas soft hate speech is a form of speech that is lawful, but nonetheless comprises alarming characteristics of intolerance and discrimination. 1 Statista, “number of social network users”, accessed October 23, 2018, https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ . 2 Compare: European Commission (COM) “C(2018)1177 final”, 1; Guiora&Park, “Hate speech”,958; Haraszti, “Complaints of a watchdog” xiii ; German Federal Government, “BT-Drucksache 18/12727, Regierungsentwurf NetzDG”, 1. 3 COM, “Code of Conduct”, 1. 4 Chulitskaya in: “Online Hate Speech in the European Union”, 66; COM, “C(2018) 1177final“, 1. 5 Sartor, “Providers Liability”, 6; Corey, “Intermediary Liability“, 294. 6 Sartor, „Providers Liability“, 13. 7 Idib. 8 Koreng, „Hate speech im Internet“, 151; Assimakopoulos, “Online Hate speech”, 12. 9 Assimakopouls, “Online Hate speech”, 4. 1 Regulation of illegal hate speech online is crucial and not just a scientific debate. For example, on August 25, 2017 in Myanmar’s Rakhine State violence broke out against the Muslim minority of the Rohingya. Since then, more than 723.000 Rohingya have fled, mainly to Bangladesh 10 , from serious human rights violations 11 . The committed crimes are so severe that the UN aims to classify these as genocide, as “the manner in which they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts” 12 . The hatred that fueled the violence against the Muslim minority was mainly spread through the social media platform Facebook, which for many in Myanmar is the Internet itself 13 . Now that the UN and journalists worldwide have criticized Facebook’s poor reaction to hate speech and hateful incitement of the public on its platform 14 , Facebook has admitted that their platform was used to support the violence and bloodshed 15 . “[W]e weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence. We agree that we can and should do more" 16 , Alex Warofka, Facebook’s Product Policy Manager wrote. This example shows two things. First, it shows how powerful social networks have become and how politics can no longer ignore ongoing processes on social networks. Second, it shows that there is a need for the regulation of illegal hate speech. Refraining from regulating illegal hate speech means an infringement of human rights like human dignity or the right to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of Germany's Netzdg Law
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law Tworek, H.; Leerssen, P. Publication date 2019 Document Version Other version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Tworek, H., & Leerssen, P. (2019). An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law. Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:24 Sep 2021 An Analysis of Germany’s NetzDG Law† Heidi Tworek, University of British Columbia Paddy Leerssen, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam1 April 15, 2019 Contents Introduction: What is the NetzDG? ........................................................................................................... 1 Freedom of Expression Implications ......................................................................................................... 2 The NetzDG in Practice: What Does the Evidence Show? .................................................................... 4 Outlooks and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The German Netzdg As Role Model Or Cautionary Tale? Implications for the Debate on Social Media Liability
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 31 XXXI Number 4 Article 4 2021 The German NetzDG as Role Model or Cautionary Tale? Implications for the Debate on Social Media Liability Patrick Zurth Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the International Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Patrick Zurth, The German NetzDG as Role Model or Cautionary Tale? Implications for the Debate on Social Media Liability, 31 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1084 (2021). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol31/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The German NetzDG as Role Model or Cautionary Tale? Implications for the Debate on Social Media Liability Cover Page Footnote Dr. iur., LL.M. (Stanford). Postdoctoral Fellow at the Chair for Private Law and Intellectual Property Law with Information- and IT-Law (GRUR-chair) (Prof. Dr. Matthias Leistner, LL.M. (Cambridge)) at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. Thanks to Professor David Freeman Engstrom, Abhilasha Vij, Jasmin Hohmann, Shazana Rohr, and the editorial board of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal for helpful comments and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Migration, Integration, Asylum
    www.ssoar.info Migration, Integration, Asylum: Political Developments in Germany 2018 Grote, Janne; Lechner, Claudia; Graf, Johannes; Schührer, Susanne; Worbs, Susanne; Konar, Özlem; Kuntscher, Anja; Chwastek, Sandy Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Forschungsbericht / research report Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Grote, J., Lechner, C., Graf, J., Schührer, S., Worbs, S., Konar, Ö., ... Chwastek, S. (2019). Migration, Integration, Asylum: Political Developments in Germany 2018. (Annual Policy Report / Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) Forschungszentrum Migration, Integration und Asyl (FZ)). Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) Forschungszentrum Migration, Integration und Asyl (FZ); Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) Nationale Kontaktstelle für das Europäische Migrationsnetzwerk (EMN). https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168- ssoar-68295-9 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Germany's Netzdg Law†
    An Analysis of Germany’s NetzDG Law† Heidi Tworek, University of British Columbia Paddy Leerssen, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam1 April 15, 2019 Contents Introduction: What is the NetzDG? ........................................................................................................... 1 Freedom of Expression Implications ......................................................................................................... 2 The NetzDG in Practice: What Does the Evidence Show? .................................................................... 4 Outlooks and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 7 Transparency and Research...................................................................................................................... 7 Due Process and Design Structure ......................................................................................................... 8 Multi-Stakeholder Relationships .............................................................................................................. 9 Appendix: Links to transparency reports ................................................................................................. 10 Notes ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction: What is the NetzDG? Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Germany's Netzdg Laws
    One in a Series of Working Papers from the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression An Analysis of Germany’s NetzDG Law Heidi Tworek University of British Columbia Paddy Leerssen Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam April 15, 2019 The Transatlantic Working Group Papers Series Co-Chairs Reports A Cycle of Censorship: The UK White Paper on Online Harms and the Dangers of Regulating Co-Chairs Reports from TWG’s Three Sessions: Disinformation Ditchley Park, Santa Monica, and Bellagio. P. Pomerantsev, October 1, 2019. U.S. Initiatives to Counter Harmful Speech and Freedom of Expression and Disinformation on Social Media Intermediary Liability A. Shahbaz, June 11, 2019. Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law ABC Framework to Address Disinformation B. Heller & J. van Hoboken, May 3, 2019. Actors, Behaviors, Content: A Disinformation ABC: Design Principles for Intermediary Liability Laws Highlighting Three Vectors of Viral Deception to J. van Hoboken & D. Keller, October 8, 2019. Guide Industry & Regulatory Responses C. François, September 20, 2019. Existing Legislative Initiatives An Analysis of Germany’s NetzDG Law Transparency and Accountability Solutions H. Tworek & P. Leerssen, April 15, 2019. Transparency Requirements for Digital Social Media Platforms: Recommendations for Policy Makers The Proposed EU Terrorism Content Regulation: and Industry Analysis and Recommendations with Respect to M. MacCarthy, February 12, 2020. Freedom of Expression Implications J. van Hoboken, May 3, 2019. Dispute Resolution and Content Moderation: Fair, Accountable, Independent, Transparent, Combating Terrorist-Related Content Through AI and Effective and Information Sharing H. Tworek, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of The
    Answers to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in regard to the Act to Improve En- forcement of the Law in Social Networks (Network Enforcement Act), provided by the Federal Government of Germany Reference: Letter, dated 1 June 2017 The concerns raised in the communication refer to the draft law on the Act to Improve En- forcement of the Law in Social Networks (Network Enforcement Act) of 14 March 2017. First of all, the Federal Government would like to set out the reasons why this draft was deemed necessary. In 2015, the increasing spread of hate crime on the internet (especially on social networks such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter) became ever more serious. Not only hate speech, defamation and malicious gossip were an issue but also the spread of “fake news”. Freedom of expression and press freedom are the cornerstones of open and free society. Nevertheless, freedom of expression ends at the point where criminal law begins. Criminally punishable hate speech and lies should have as little place in social media as in every other area of society. The internet shapes the culture of debate and the overall social climate in our country. What is more, verbal radicalisation is often the first step towards physical violence. Anyone who disseminates punishable content on the internet must be held to account – and not just by the justice system. The platform operators also bear responsibility. Efforts have long been made to raise awareness about these issues amongst platform op- erators with very little success.
    [Show full text]
  • EMN Politikbericht 2018 Migration, Integration, Asylum
    Migration, Integration, Asylum Political Developments in Germany 2018 Annual Policy Report by the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN) Forschung Funded by the European Union's Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Migration, Integration, Asylum Political Developments in Germany 2018 Annual Policy Report by the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN) Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2019 Summary 5 Summary The 2018 Policy Report provides an overview of the (BMI) and the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs most important political discussions and political, legal and Energy (BMWi) worked on the 'Skilled Labour Im- and institutional developments in the areas of migra- migration Act' (Fachkräfteeinwanderungsgesetz) an- tion, integration and asylum in the Federal Repub- nounced in the coalition agreement, which was passed lic of Germany in the year 2018. It describes changes by the federal cabinet in December 2018 and provided to the general political structure, for instance due to for various measures aimed at facilitating access to the elections, the establishment of new institutions and labour market for foreign employees. institutional developments. In addition, it deals with issues relating to legal migration, international pro- Refugee migration to Germany declined once again tection and asylum, unaccompanied minors and other in 2018 similar to the previous year with a total of vulnerable groups, integration and non-discrimination, 185,853 first-time and subsequent asylum applications citizenship and statelessness, irregular migration, re- being filed. During the same period, 216,873 decisions turn, smuggling, border control and visa policy, return, were taken on first-time and subsequent applica- human trafficking and migration and development.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Intermediaries to Protect Privacy Online – the Case of the German Netzdg
    Wolfgang Schulz Regulating Intermediaries to Protect Privacy Online – the Case of the German NetzDG HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES 2018-01 Regulating Intermediaries to Protect Privacy Online – the Case of the German NetzDG ABSTRACT With the shift of communication to the internet, conflicts between freedom of communication and personal rights are also shifting to the Net. With the enactment of a so-called “Network Enforcement Act” (Netzwerkduchsetzungsgesetz - NetzDG), Germany has taken a path to address this problem by regulating platforms, which has received much international attention. This article presents the regulatory concept of the NetzDG and examines the consequences, especially for freedom of communication. Alternatives will be discussed on the basis of a recent recommendation of the Council of Europe on roles and responsibilities of online intermediaries. This is a preprint of an essay that was written for the volume by Marion Albers and Ingo Sarlet (editors), Personality and Data Protection Rights on the Internet. KEYWORDS Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, Network Enforcement Act, Intermediary Regulation, Freedom of Speech, Law and Technology AUTHOR Wolfgang Schulz is Professor of Media Law, Public Law and Legal Theory, University of Hamburg; Director Hans-Bredow-Institut; Director Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society; UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information. The author wants to thank Florian Wittner for valuable feedback and research support. HIIG DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES · 2018-01 1 Regulating Intermediaries
    [Show full text]
  • The Network Enforcement Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Chicago Law School: Chicago Unbound Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 20 Number 1 Article 7 1-1-2019 Enforcement Through the Network: The Network Enforcement Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Imara McMillan Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation McMillan, Imara (2019) "Enforcement Through the Network: The Network Enforcement Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 20: No. 1, Article 7. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol20/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Enforcement Through the Network: The Network Enforcement Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Cover Page Footnote I would like to thank Professor Lakier and the entire Chicago Journal of International Law staff for helping me develop this Comment from a casual question of “is this legal” to a thesis about the way social media companies should be regulated across borders. A particular shout-out goes to the team at Cloudflare, who introduced me to the idea that international law touches more than just trade and migration. This is a piece I am really proud of, and I hope everyone who helped me work on it understands exactly how important their role was.
    [Show full text]
  • Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media
    Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media Legal Review of the Draft Law on Better Law Enforcement in Social Networks Prepared by Prof. Dr. Bernd Holznagel, LL.M. Commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media May 2017 I. Subject Matter of Assessment The analysis’ subject is the draft bill of the “Draft Act improving law enforcement on social networks” (Network Enforcement Act – NEA) prepared by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. The draft was notified to the European Commission (notification number 2017/127/D) on 27 March 2017. The investigation contains: A comparison between the draft provisions and the guidelines of international law (international standards) concerning media and freedom of information as well as the relevant OSCE commitments shall be made. Draft provisions that are incompatible with media and freedom of information principles (free flow of information) shall be identified. Proposals for possibilities to harmonise the legislation with the above mentioned international standards shall be put forward. II. Research Issue The growing dissemination of hate crime and other criminal content especially in social networks like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter triggered the NEA draft. In 2016 the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt der Justiz) published its annual statistics1, which showed that in 2015 the number of officially recorded hate crimes with right-wing extremist and xenophobic content on the Internet had tripled compared to 2013 and 2014. Additional surveys reveal a large dark field. In a representative online-survey of German citizens, initiated by the Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia (Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen, LfM)2, two-thirds of the users stated that they had already been confronted with hate messages in social networks, Internet forums or blogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuts About NETZ: the Network Enforcement Act and Freedom of Expression
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 42, Issue 4 2019 Article 7 Nuts About NETZ: The Network Enforcement Act and Freedom of Expression Rebecca Zipursky∗ ∗ Copyright c 2019 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj NOTE NUTS ABOUT NETZ: THE NETWORK ENFORCEMENT ACT AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Rebecca Zipursky* ABSTRACT In the wake of scandals about the radicalization of hate groups online, Germany passed the Network Enforcement Act (“NetzDG”) to prevent hate speech online. In the months after NetzDG went into effect, social media platforms began engaging in overcorrection of hate speech online. This includes censorship and a new commitment to adhering to the strictest speech laws. In response, German and global citizens alike have answered with backlash against the rise of censorship in Europe. Despite this, Germany continues to stand by its laws as a steadfast protection of the rights and dignity of the German people. The conflict of these protections finds itself in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Article 19. The Human Rights Council has called into question NetzDG, arguing that the measure violates the freedom of expression. This Note will review the Network Enforcement Act for violations of freedom of expression law. After thorough analysis, this Note will suggest remedies to correct any potential violations. ABSTRACT ............................................................................1325 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................1327 * Volume XVIII Executive Notes and Articles Editor; J.D. Candidate, 2019, Fordham University School of Law; Skidmore College Class of 2015, cum laude. I would like to thank Professor Olivier Sylvain for his guidance, Professor Danielle Citron for her inspiration, and the editorial board of the Fordham International Law Journal for their dedication in helping me publish this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech and Radicalisation Online the OCCI Research Report
    Hate Speech and Radicalisation Online The OCCI Research Report Johannes Baldauf, Julia Ebner and Jakob Guhl (Eds.) Foreword by Prof. Dr. Peter Neumann With contributions by Simone Rafael Prof. Dr. Christian Montag Dr. Matthias Quent Alexander Ritzmann Karolin Schwarz Sina Laubenstein Daniel Köhler Josef Holnburger Alexander Urban About this study Prof. Dr. Peter Neumann is a senior fellow and founding director of ICSR at King’s College, London. The research series Hate Speech and Radicalisation on the Internet provides interdisciplinary insights Simone Rafael is the editor-in-chief of Belltower.News, into the current developments of extremist activities the watchblog of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation. on the internet. With the aid of expert contributions from all over Germany, the psychological, political, Alexander Ritzmann is a member of the steering anthropological and technological aspects of online committee of the Radicalisation Awareness Network hate speech and radicalisation will be considered and of the European Commission (DG HOME) and a recommendations will be made for political leaders, scientific assistant and senior research fellow at the social media platforms as well as NGOs and activists. Brandenburg Institute for Society and Security. Daniel Köhler is the Director of the German Institute About the publishing organisations of Radicalisation and De-radicalisation Studies. In 2016, together with the International Centre for Prof. Dr. Christian Montag is a professor at the Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), the Institute for Psychology and Education Theory Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the Amadeu (Molecular Psychology) at Ulm University. Antonio Foundation, Facebook launched the Online Civil Courage Initiative (OCCI). The objective is to Karolin Schwarz is a freelance journalist, combat extremism and hate speech on the internet.
    [Show full text]