IGF 2016: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth

[20-Minute Lightning Session]

Recent commitments of social media platforms and proposals for legal provisions on cybercrime to address “hate speech” are ultimately leading to more censorship and surveillance of the Internet. Measures such as content blockage and filtering, real name policies, data retention and prohibition of anonymity have been listed as solutions, but have little effect and a lot of potential damage. 

It is important to recall that privacy and anonymity are crucial to the exercise freedom of expression, particularly in hostile environments, where either the State or society itself are adverse to a debate that might be thorny, but relevant to promote shifts in old paradigms. 

What exactly is "hate speech"? What differentiates it from already established criminal provisions of such as libel and slander? Is there any kind of physical tangibility to be considered? If so, what differentiates it from incitement to crime? Does hate speech directed to the powerful differs from hate directed at minorities or socially discriminated groups? They are both equally punishable? How do we draw the line between "hate speech" and political speech? Is deletion of the speech in question and prosecution the offender the most suitable way to address hate within the society?

Taking all this questions for granted generates severe damage not only to the protection and promotion of privacy and freedom of expression, but also for the openness and security of internet architecture itself. How do we protect the victims while this questions are still on the table?