网络安全法案草案与仇恨言论管制:我们打开了潘多拉的盒子吗?

Q2 Social Sciences

Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870

Peter Coe

{"title":"网络安全法案草案与仇恨言论管制:我们打开了潘多拉的盒子吗?","authors":"Peter Coe","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany’s Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK’s Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed ‘responsibility’ as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora’s Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more ‘control of the message’.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Draft Online Safety Bill and the regulation of hate speech: have we opened Pandora’s box?\",\"authors\":\"Peter Coe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany’s Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK’s Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed ‘responsibility’ as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora’s Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more ‘control of the message’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

在考虑发展中的网络伤害制度(在英国和其他地方)时，只考虑法律如何将责任放在社交媒体平台上以防止仇恨言论可能有利于社会，这是可以原谅的。然而，这些法律可能对言论自由产生潜在的影响。通过借鉴德国的《网络执法法》，我调查了责任的增加前景，以及违反英国《网络安全法》中注意义务可能导致的罚款——一旦它生效——是否会导致平台审查更多的言论，但不一定是仇恨言论，并利用强加的“责任”作为审查不符合其目标的言论的借口。因此，在起草一项保护公众免受仇恨言论侵害的法案时，我们可能会无意中打开潘多拉的盒子，给平台一个法定的理由来更多地“控制信息”。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Draft Online Safety Bill and the regulation of hate speech: have we opened Pandora’s box?

ABSTRACT In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany’s Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK’s Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed ‘responsibility’ as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora’s Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more ‘control of the message’.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?