PODGORICA, 25.08.2018. – Progresses of technology redefine the public space and therefore the channels and ways of informing. Social media are modern agora, giving the space for freedom of speech, but also for the hate speech. However, there should be responsibility for the exploitation of virtual space. In mid-2016, the European Union reached an agreement with leading social media in the joint fight against hate speech.
Companies – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have promised to “quickly and efficiently” suppress hate speech based on race, skin colour, faith, origin, nationality or ethnicity by introducing internal procedures in order to respond at right way to hate speech.
Hate speech is most prominent on the internet and to the members of the LGBT population, rated at the roundtable organised by NGO Prima in September 2017. On that occasion it was announced that the media and parents should be more actively involved in campaigning against that phenomenon. At the end of the same year at the conference “Protect and Observe Human Rights”, Montenegrin Ombudsman Šućko Baković pointed out that hate speech is present in various ways in Montenegrin social and political reality. The Office of the Ombudsman considers that hate speech can only be responded by criminal sanction, but no one has been penalized until now even it is an offense prohibited by the Law on Discrimination.
There is a clear difference between hate speech and the right to freedom of expression (speech), but unfortunately the European research presented by the NGO “35mm” to the Montenegrin public in 2016 showed that more than a third of respondents equate hate speech with freedom of expression.
Recommendation No.R (97) 20 of the Council of Europe says “hate speech implies all forms of expression that spread, disseminate, encourage or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed in the form of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities and people of immigrant origin”. On the other hand, the Constitution of Montenegro guarantees the right of all citizens to freedom of expression and everyone has the right to express oneself either in a speech, written word and picture or in some other way. However this right is limited by the right of others to dignity, reputation and honour, but also in cases of endangering public morality or the security of the state.
Although the supreme legal act has set a clear boundary of freedom of expression, many cross this border and invoke only their own right without thinking about the rights of others. The Freedom of expression is not defined only in Montenegrin laws but also in international law. Thus, Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (MPGPP) guarantee the right to freedom of expression. As with the Constitution of Montenegro, freedom of expression is not an absolute right, so Article 10 of the European Convention prescribes that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties, as required by law and necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, integrity or public security, in order to prevent disorder or crime, to protect health or morals, to protect the reputation or rights of others, to prevent the disclosure of information obtained in confidence or for the preservation of authority and the impartiality of the judiciary. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 20, legally prohibits the propagation of war, but also the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
There is a clear boundary between hate speech and freedom of expression. And is it just so in the adopted documents or in reality?
The organization GEYC from Romania, in cooperation with partners from Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Moldova, Estonia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Turkey, France, Albania, Bulgaria and Italy, conducted a survey involving young people from 14 to 35 years. The aim of the research was the perception of youth about hate speech with a special emphasis on this phenomenon on the Internet. The survey was conducted from October 3 to November 15, 2016; it was anonymous and involved 1,623 respondents.
It is disturbing that even 76.1 percent of respondents have participated several times in sending or launching hate speech on the Internet, 12.2 percent once and only 11.7 percent have never participated. The survey showed that more than half (55 percent), youth were bullies, while two-thirds (76 percent) used hate speech against others.
Research has shown that young people commonly recognize hate speech on social media, news, and commentaries on blogs and websites. Very often, music, jokes, commercials and movies contain hate speech. Therefore the media should pay special attention to the content they are publishing, but also to the comments of these products, as well as orders on the various social networks they administer (although this field is not regulated by law and the media is not responsible for the content).
More than one third of respondents who are facing hate speech on the Internet are not responding because they feel that hate speech is equal to freedom of expression. Less than a quarter of the respondents who were confronted with hate speech sought revenge and became aggressors. A result of the survey showed that 11 percent of the victims blamed themselves and slightly more than two percent (2.2 percent) seeking professional help.
Young people are not only who have difficulty in recognizing hate speech. There is still discussion about this phenomenon and on the global level. Therefore the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), in its general policy no. 15 more precisely defines hate speech – “it implies the use of one or more specific forms of expression – namely, advocating, promoting, or inciting hatred, hatred or condemnation of a person or group of persons, as well as harassment, insults, negative stereotypes, stigmatization or threats to a person or persons and any justification for all these forms of expression – based on an illustrative list of personal qualities or statuses that include “race”, colour, language, religion or belief, nationality or national, ethnic or other origin, age, disability, gender, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation “.
When it comes to the media, their function as guardians of democracy always stands out. Regarding this role, they should be more proactive when hate speech is concerned, since it is the denial of fundamental democratic values. The media should be controllers of the content in order to minimize or banned all forms of expression that stir up hate, regardless of whether it is race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other specialty. It seems that often those who decide on media content forget about the role of controllers and lead, or justify, the right public to know.
The Agency for Electronic Media (AEK), in the second edition of the regional publication “Regulatory Media and Hate Speech”, has presented several instances of hate speech in the period from 2003 to 2016. In the presented examples, there was a hate speech aimed at: national minorities, people of different sexual orientation, ethnicity and other. What AEM draws attention is that the media and employees should be especially beware as there is a risk that what is expressed in the media, by those who use the media, is understood as support or attitude.
The Montenegrin journalist’s code states that “a journalist must especially keep in mind that nothing contributes to the spread of hatred when reporting on events and phenomena that contain hate elements”. This should be done with the education of media workers, but also the media owners.
Survey respondents, 35.3 percent of them as the main actors in the fight against hate speech on the Internet are recognized by individual users identifying hate speech, 19.6 percent believe that they are web site moderators, 8.3 percent of the competent institution, 35 percent All stated, while 1.8 percent listed the rest as the main actors.
In a “global village” the media should be aware of their power and actively participate in the creation of a democratic and tolerant society whose users of media products will not equal hate speech with freedom of expression (opinion). Therefore, it should be worked on education, not only journalism students, but also active journalists, as well as strengthening self-regulation and regulation, adapting national with international documents.
Still, although there are many precise definitions, as well as cases considered not only at national level but also at European and other courts and are used as examples; there is still no “precise scale” that can safely measure how much hatred or freedom is in a speech.
This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
