European Commission's Hate Speech Deal With Companies Will Chill Speech
Commentary by Jillian C. York
A new agreement between the European Commission and four major U.S. companies—Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft—went into effect yesterday. The agreement will require companies to "review the majority of valid notifications for removal of hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content," as well as "educate and raise awareness" with their users about the companies' guidelines.
The deal was made under the Commission's "EU Internet Forum," launched last year as a means to counter what EDRi calls "vaguely-defined 'terrorist activity and hate speech online.'" While some members of civil society were able to participate in discussions, they were excluded from the negotiations that led to the agreement, says EDRi.
The agreement has been met with opposition by a number of groups, including EDRi (of which we're a member), Access Now, and Index on Censorship, all of which have expressed concerns that the deal with stifle freedom of expression. The decision has also sparked debate on social media, with a wide variety of individuals and groups opposing the decision under the hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.
But you don't have to stand with hate speech to stand against this decision. There are several reasons to oppose this Orwellian agreement. First, while Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows states to limit freedom of expression under select circumstances, such limitations are intended to be the exception, and are permitted only to protect the following:
The rights or reputations of others,
national security,
public order,
public health, or
morals.
These limits must also meet a three-part test as defined by the ICCPR: be defined by law; have legitimate aim; and and be truly necessary. While some of the speech that concerns the Commission may very well qualify as illegal under some countries' laws, the method by which they've sought to limit it will surely have a chilling effect on free speech.
In addition, as EDRi points out, despite a lengthy negotiation between companies and the Commission, "hate speech" remains vaguely-defined. Companies have been tasked with taking the lead on determining what constitutes hate speech, with potentially disastrous results.
In fact, social media companies have an abysmal track record when it comes to regulating any kind of speech. As Onlinecensorship.org's research shows, speech that is permitted by companies' terms of service is often removed, with users given few paths to recourse. Users report experiencing bans from Facebook for 24 hours to up to 30 days if the company determines they've violated the Community Standards—which, in many cases, the user has not. Requiring companies to review complaints within 24 hours will almost surely result in the removal of speech that would be legal in Europe.
By taking decision-making outside of the democratic system and into backrooms, and granting corporations even greater control, the European Commission is ensuring a chill on online speech.
Deeplinks Blog by Jennifer Pinsof | December 31, 2022
Reproductive Justice and Digital Rights: 2022 in Review
Reproductive justice and safe access to abortion, like so many other aspects of managing our healthcare, is fundamentally tied to our digital lives. And since it is part of our healthcare, we should have the ability to keep it private and access information about it, even when it's on a...
Deeplinks Blog by Jillian C. York | December 27, 2022
The State of Online Free Expression Worldwide: 2022 in Review
It's been a tumultuous year for free expression globally. From internet shutdowns, crackdowns on expression and closed-door partnerships to attempts to restrict anonymity and end to end encryption, in many places, digital rights are under threat. And while the European Union has made regulatory strides, elsewhere...
It's impossible to cover everything we've done this year in a blog post that doesn't take the whole new year to read. But rest assured, we did a lot and none of it would be possible without our members, supporters, and all of you who stood up and took action...
Deeplinks Blog by Paige Collings | December 19, 2022
No Nudity Allowed: Censoring Naked Yoga
Most nude content is legal, and engaging with such material online provides individuals with a safe and open framework to explore their identities, build communities, and discover new interests. However, social networks and payment processors are intervening to become the arbiters of how people create and engage...
Deeplinks Blog by Aaron Mackey, Adam Schwartz | December 12, 2022
EFF to Court: No Qualified Immunity for Wrongful Arrest of Independent Journalists
Independent journalists increasingly gather newsworthy information and publish it on social media, often without the involvement of traditional news media. They make important contributions to public discourse and are often the first to report newsworthy events. Courts must scrupulously safeguard their First Amendment rights to gather and publish the...
Deeplinks Blog by Aaron Mackey | December 6, 2022
The Supreme Court Must Protect Internet Users' Rights to Access Controversial Information Online
Lawsuits claiming that online services aid terrorist organizations just by hosting their content or having users who espouse the organizations' views potentially could censor a vast amount of protected expression online, EFF and a coalition of other civil society groups argued in a brief filed this week. In Twitter...
Deeplinks Blog by Karen Gullo | December 2, 2022
India Requires Internet Services to Collect and Store Vast Amount of Customer Data, Building a Path to Mass Surveillance
Privacy and online free expression are once again under threat in India, thanks to vaguely worded cybersecurity directions—promulgated by India's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) earlier this year—that impose draconian mass surveillance obligations on internet services, threatening privacy and anonymity and weakening security online.Directions 20(3)/2022 -...