intermediaries’ liability for hate speech
DESCRIPTION
http://cmpf.eui.eu/events/combating-hate-speech.aspx Giovanni Sartor EUI - European University Institute of Florence CIRSFID - Faculty of law, University of Bologna March 26, 2012TRANSCRIPT
Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech
Giovanni Sartor
EUI - European University Institute of FlorenceCIRSFID - Faculty of law, University of Bologna
March 26, 2012
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 1 / 15
The user-generated internet
Internet users write the web, by inputting materials in various containers:web sites (web pages)blogson-line repositories of texts (scribd), photos (flickr), movies(youTube), music, etc.social networkon line forums, comments to other people’s blogs, etc.
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 2 / 15
Making the provider liable
Should providers be liable (for torts and/or crimes: copyright, libel,defamation, hate crimes, child pornography, etc.) when:
hosting material such that its posting is illegal (to the detriment ofprivacy, copyright, equality-dignity, etc.)taking down material such that its posting is legal (to the detriment offreedom of speech, political or economic freedoms, etc.)
Problem: should there be immunity when uploading/keeping illegalmaterial; and/or taking down legal material?
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 3 / 15
The basic legal discipline
Host providers are immune from civil and criminal responsibility for illegaluser-generate content:
in the US according to two instrument:the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act), which provides immunityfrom copyright violationsthe CDA (communications decency act) which provides broaderimmunity from other kinds of illegal content
in Europe according to the E-Commerce Directive, which addresses allkinds of illegal content
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 4 / 15
Should the provider be responsible? Yes
Since, at least with regard to civil liabilitythe provider is profiting from access to the hosted information(fairness)the provider is identifiable and has the resources for coveringcompensation (compensation, risk sharing)the provider can and should be incentivised to prevent damage byremoving or filtering illegal information (prevention/efficiency)
Current immunities should be eliminated. They are subventions toproviders, which are no longer needed now that (some) providers enjoyhuge economic success
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 5 / 15
Should the provider be responsible? No
Since,the provider has not created the contentmaking the provider liable will impose costs on the provider and put atrisk the current business model (free access)the provider will likely exceed in censorship: if it were considered to beliable it will remove all content having even a small chance of being asource of liability (freedom of expression)
Immunities should be preserved and strengthened. The provider only has asmall benefit from the presence of particular materials on its platform, amuch larger benefit goes to the uploader and to society: incentive to takedown outweighs incentive to preserve even when social interest requirespreserving.
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 6 / 15
First model. Notice and take down: DCMA 512
Immunity for hosting- No liability for the provider that complies with noticeand take down. The procedure:
right holder sends notice of infringing material to the ISP’s agentprovider takes down and informs customerif customer sends counter-notice, then provider informs right-holderif right-holder does not bring lawsuit, provider puts back material
Immunity for removing. Provider immune if content:claimed to be infringingappearing to be infringing
Plusses: Passive role for provider, involvement of the uploderMinuses: Noticed provider tend to take down any material, to avoid liability(but uploader has chance to respond).
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 7 / 15
Second model. Absolute immunity: CDA, section 230
Full immunity for hosting:providers are not responsible for hosting illegal material (exceptcopyright)limited possibility of injunctions against providers
Immunity for removing:immunity for screening objectionable contentimmunity for deleting such content
Are providers allowed to engage in censorship, to maintain civility? Yes if ingood faith.
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 8 / 15
Third model: immunity when not knowing. EU e-commercedirective
Provider not liable for hosting illegal content if:has no actual knowledge of illegal material (and for damages has noknowledge of facts from which the illegal information is apparent), orupon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously toremove or to disable access to the information
Member states may not impose general obligations on providersto monitor the informationto actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity
No clear indication of immunity for removing content
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 9 / 15
Problem. What is knowledge of illegality?
Knowledge of the illegality of hosted material x involves 2 aspects:1 factual knowledge: material x is hosted on the provider’s server2 legal knowledge: material x is illegal
Some issuesWhat is knowledge of illegality: true belief (the knower views thecontrary as impossible or absurd)?Should the provider actively engage in getting legal knowledge?What should it do with regard to the vast area of penumbra (orrather, the gradual dimming) between the light of legality and thedarkness of illegality?
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 10 / 15
Fourth model: The administrative model
A public authority gives presumptive indications on what to take down:law enforcement authority (injunctions)independent authority (Hadopi-FR, Italian AGCOM, for copyright,data protection supervisors, etc.)public administrations
Plusses: filter on unreasonable requestsMinuses: difficulty in challenging the authority’s decision, possibly noinvolvement of uploader
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 11 / 15
The 2010 draft Council recommendation for Public-PrivatePartnership to Counter the Dissemination of Illegal Content
Combination of models 1, 3 and 4:binding legal request from law enforcement authority → obligation totake downnotification from citizen → obligation to take down if content isclearly illegalnotification from law enforcement authorities or authorised complainthotline → obligation to take down unless content is considered to belegal, in this case notify authority
Issues:no right of the up loaders to counterclaim (they are excluded from theprocess)no clarity on immunity for taking down legal material (providers canfree themselves of any responsibility through contracts with users)incentive to censorship (it is always the safer choice)
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 12 / 15
Legality-illegality in the recommendation
IPSs should categorise materials they are notified about into there classes:Certainly legal →Obligation to take it down if binding request byauthority, obligation to take down or permissible to take down ifnotified by citizens or authorised complain linesPossibly legal and possibly illegal → Obligation to take it down ifbinding request by authority or authorised complain lines. Permissibleif notified by citizens.Certainly illegal → Obligation to take it down whenever notified
How to check whether content falls within what category?
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 13 / 15
Conclusions
Providers cannot and should not have the obligation to prevent on-linehate speech (no preventive filter on speech). A good thing, possibly:hate comes to the light, and society can express its judgment on itand take appropriate decisions. Right to respond for victims?Providers may be compelled to take down hate materials, butrespecting the adversarial principle (unless material is anonymous),possibly on the basis of a presumptive authoritative assessment, butjudges should have the last word.Providers should not be obliged to assess the legality of materials, butthey should be permitted to take down in good faith inappropriatematerials, depending on the kind of platform (considering how easilyusers can avoid exposure).Uploaders should be given a role and enabled to express their opinion.
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 14 / 15
This is the end!
Thanks for your attention!
G. Sartor (EUI-CIRSFID) Intermediaries’ liability for hate speech 15 / 15