MODELS OF GOVERNANCE OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH On the emergence of collaborative governance and the challenges of giving redress to targets of online hate speech within a human rights PREMS 057220 framework in Europe Alexander Brown Models of Governance of Online Hate Speech On the emergence of collaborative governance and the challenges of giving redress to targets of online hate speech within a human rights framework in Europe Alexander Brown Council of Europe The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Anti-Discrimination, Director General of Democracy Cover and layout: Documents and Publications Production Department (SPDP), Council of Europe Photo: Shutterstock This publication has not been copy-edited by the SPDP Editorial Unit to correct typographical and grammatical errors. © Council of Europe, May 2020 Online published by the Council of Europe 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 6 I. CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................. 8 A. Impetus for the study ....................................................................................................................... 8 (i) Demand for action ....................................................................................................................... 8 (ii) Standardization agenda............................................................................................................ 14 B. Wider background to the study ...................................................................................................... 17 (i) Emphasis on the importance of international human rights frameworks ................................... 17 (ii) Growing demands on Internet platforms to do their bit in tackling online hate speech ............. 19 (iii) Recognition of the diversity of Internet platforms ..................................................................... 25 (iv) Promotion of collaborative governance of online hate speech ................................................ 26 (v) Trade-offs at the heart of the governance of online hate speech ............................................. 28 C. What’s the point of Internet governance for online hate speech? .................................................. 30 (i) Three levels of governance: The moderation level, the oversight level and the regulatory level ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 (ii) Outcome-oriented versus process-oriented governance tools: The NetzDG Act in Germany and the Avia Bill in France as case studies ................................................................................... 32 (iii) Understanding the purpose or function of governance tools for online hate speech ............... 35 D. On the prima facie need for pluralism, disaggregation and integration within the governance of online hate speech ............................................................................................................................. 38 (i) Public content areas versus closed groups ............................................................................... 39 (ii) Different types of Internet platforms ......................................................................................... 40 (iii) Different kinds of content ......................................................................................................... 41 (iv) Differential reputational damage to Internet platforms ............................................................. 41 (v) Differing amounts, types and degrees of harmfulness of hate speech ..................................... 42 (vi) Pluralism of country contexts ................................................................................................... 44 (vii) Implications of diversity and pluralism for the governance of online hate speech .................. 44 E. Definitional Issues .......................................................................................................................... 46 F. Governance firewalls: Facebook’s Oversight Board as a case study ............................................ 52 G. Aims, scope and methods of the study .......................................................................................... 59 II. FIRST LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE MODERATION LEVEL ................................63 A. Professionalised moderation.......................................................................................................... 63 B. Distributed moderation ................................................................................................................... 67 C. Pre-moderation by professional publishers of content ................................................................... 69 D. Facilitated user self-moderation ..................................................................................................... 70 E. Auto-moderation ............................................................................................................................ 71 F. Content management .................................................................................................................... 72 III. SECOND LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE OVERSIGHT LEVEL ..............................74 A. Public consultation on content policies and moderation guidelines, processes and procedures ... 74 B. Internal appeals processes ............................................................................................................ 75 C. General recommendations from an independent supervisory council, steering committee or oversight board .................................................................................................................................. 77 D. Referrals of grey area or difficult cases to an independent supervisory council, steering committee or oversight board .............................................................................................................................. 78 E. Fully independent dispute resolution procedure or mediation process .......................................... 84 F. User rating system ......................................................................................................................... 85 IV. THIRD LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE REGULATORY LEVEL ..............................86 A. Legal compliance ........................................................................................................................... 86 B. Voluntary code of practice ............................................................................................................. 90 3 C. Legal responsibility to remove unlawful hate speech enforced with fines ...................................... 95 (i) Exceptions from legal responsibilities in the case of journalistic content................................. 101 (ii) Exceptions from legal responsibility for Internet platforms that refer grey area cases to competent independent institutions and abide by the decisions .................................................. 102 (iii) Exemptions from liability for Internet platforms granted “responsible platform” status ........... 103 (iv) Leniency programmes that give Internet platforms reductions in fines if they fully cooperate with governmental authorities ...................................................................................................... 109 D. Legal responsibility not to over-remove lawful hate speech enforced with fines.......................... 110 E. Statutory duty of care and/or code of practice ............................................................................. 113 F. Special public prosecutor ............................................................................................................. 116 G. Bespoke criminal offences........................................................................................................... 120 H. Reform of sentencing guidelines ................................................................................................. 123 I. Special police unit ......................................................................................................................... 125 V. ON THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES TO THE GOVERNENCE OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH ..............................................................................126 A. Potential benefits of collaboration in the governance of online hate speech ............................... 127 B. Potential disbenefits of collaboration in the governance of online hate speech ........................... 129 (i) Challenges in collaboration between Internet platforms and trusted flaggers and monitoring bodies .........................................................................................................................................