STANFORD How to Reconcile International Human Rights Law and Criminalization of Online Speech: Violent Extremism, Misinformation, Defamation, and Cyberharassment 2019-2020 PRACTICUM RESEARCH TEAM Amélie-Sophie VAVROVSKY Justin WONG Anirudh JAIN Madeline LIBBEY Asaf ZILBERFARB Madeline MAGNUSON David JAFFE Naz GOCEK Eric FRANKEL Nil Sifre TOMAS Jasmine SHAO Shalini IYENGAR June LEE Sydney FRANKENBERG INSTRUCTORS AND PROJECT LEADS: Sarah SHIRAZYAN, Ph.D. Lecturer in Law Allen WEINER Senior Lecturer in Law, Director, Stanford Program in International and Comparative Law Yvonne LEE, M.A. Teaching Assistant Madeline Magnuson, J.D. Research Assistant ABOUT THE STANFORD LAW SCHOOL POLICY LAB Engagement in public policy is a core mission of teaching and research at Stanford Law School (SLS). The Law and Policy Lab (The Policy Lab) offers students an immersive experience in finding solutions to some of the world’s most pressing issues. Under the guidance of seasoned faculty advisers, Policy Lab students counsel real-world clients in an array of areas, including education, global governance, transnational law enforcement, intellectual property, policing and technology, and energy policy. Policy labs address policy problems for real clients, using analytic approaches that supplement traditional legal analysis. The clients may be local, state, federal and international public agencies or officials, or private non-profit entities such as NGOs and foundations. Typically, policy labs assist clients in deciding whether and how qualitative and/or quantitative empirical evidence can be brought to bear to better understand the nature or magnitude of their particular policy problem and identify and assess policy options. The methods may include comparative case studies, population surveys, stakeholder interviews, experimental methods, program evaluation or big data science, and a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Faculty and students may apply theoretical perspectives from cognitive and social psychology, decision theory, economics, organizational behavior, political science or other behavioral science disciplines. The resulting deliverables reflect the needs of the client, with most resulting in an oral or written policy briefing for key decision-makers. Directed by former SLS Dean Paul Brest, the Policy Lab reflects the school’s belief that systematic examination of societal problems, informed by rigorous data analysis, can generate solutions to society’s most challenging public problems. In addition to policy analysis, students hone the communications skills needed to translate their findings into actionable measures for policy leaders and the communities they serve. The projects emphasize teamwork and collaboration and are often interdisciplinary, giving law students the opportunity to work with faculty and colleagues from across the university with expertise in such fields as technology, computer science, medicine, business and international diplomacy, among others. 2 ABOUT THE STANFORD LAW SCHOOL POLICY LAB Engagement in public policy is a core mission of teaching and research at Stanford Law School (SLS). The Law and Policy Lab (The Policy Lab) offers students an immersive experience in finding solutions to some of the world’s most pressing issues. Under the guidance of seasoned faculty advisers, Policy Lab students counsel real-world clients in an array of areas, including education, global governance, transnational law enforcement, intellectual property, policing and technology, and energy policy. Policy labs address policy problems for real clients, using analytic approaches that supplement traditional legal analysis. The clients may be local, state, federal and international public agencies or officials, or private non-profit entities such as NGOs and foundations. Typically, policy labs assist clients in deciding whether and how qualitative and/or quantitative empirical evidence can be brought to bear to better understand the nature or magnitude of their particular policy problem and identify and assess policy options. The methods may include comparative case studies, population surveys, stakeholder interviews, experimental methods, program evaluation or big data science, and a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Faculty and students may apply theoretical perspectives from cognitive and social psychology, decision theory, economics, organizational behavior, political science or other behavioral science disciplines. The resulting deliverables reflect the needs of the client, with most resulting in an oral or written policy briefing for key decision-makers. Directed by former SLS Dean Paul Brest, the Policy Lab reflects the school’s belief that systematic examination of societal problems, informed by rigorous data analysis, can generate solutions to society’s most challenging public problems. In addition to policy analysis, students hone the communications skills needed to translate their findings into actionable measures for policy leaders and the communities they serve. The projects emphasize teamwork and collaboration and are often interdisciplinary, giving law students the opportunity to work with faculty and colleagues from across the university with expertise in such fields as technology, computer science, medicine, business and international diplomacy, among others. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE STANFORD LAW SCHOOL POLICY LAB ....................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 7 A. VIOLENT EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS ONLINE: EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION .........................................................8 B. SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ONLINE .......................................................................................................................... 10 C. DEFAMATION ONLINE............................................................................................................................................................... 12 D. CYBERHARASSMENT AND CYBERBULLYING ......................................................................................................................... 13 II. KEY TAKEAWAYS ................................................................................................................................................. 17 A. VEO-RELATED SPEECH: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY OF RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH THAT PURPORTEDLY ENDORSES VIOLENCE............................................................................................... 18 1. Nature of the Post(s)...................................................................................................................................................... 20 2. Number of the Post(s) ................................................................................................................................................... 20 3. Content of the Post.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Any Violence Resulting from the Post ..................................................................................................................... 21 5. Timing of the Post ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 6. Medium & Reach of the Post ....................................................................................................................................... 22 7. Speaker’s Role and Personal History ...................................................................................................................... 23 8. Proportionality of Sentencing.................................................................................................................................... 23 B. SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ONLINE: GLOBAL LEGISLATIVE TRENDS ................................................................. 24 1. International Jurisprudence on Criminalizing the Spread of False Information ................................ 24 2. Global Trends in State Reponses to False Information ................................................................................... 25 C. DEFAMATION ONLINE: JURISPRUDENTIAL AND NATIONAL TRENDS .............................................................................. 28 D. CYBERHARASSMENT AND CYBERBULLYING: JURISPRUDENTIAL AND NATIONAL TRENDS ......................................... 32 1. Few Court Cases Found Applications of Cyberharassment Laws to Violate Free Expression ........ 32 2. Many Forms of Cyberharassment Are at Least Lightly Criminalized ....................................................... 32 3. Cyberbullying by Minors Is Generally Not Criminalized................................................................................. 33 III. ARCHITECTURE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOR ONLINE EXPRESSION ....... 34 3 A. RELEVANT TREATIES AND INSTRUMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ............................................... 35 1. International Mechanisms .........................................................................................................................................