The problem of the freedom of expression of the UN

Anyone who wants to consult the collection of international laws on freedom of expression will find it heavy with protections. The UN Human Rights Declaration states in its preamble the following ideal: "The human being must enjoy freedom of speech and belief, as well as fear and desire ", nothing less than" the highest aspiration of the people ". Article 19 reiterates that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom not to be disturbed by his or her views and to seek, to receive and transmit information and ideas by any means of the press and without distinction of border ".

International law has come with its heavy and stifling limits. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights categorically endorses lawful injunctions "as provided by law and necessary … (c) to respect the rights or reputation of others; (d) for the protection of public order, public health or morality ". These limits provided governments with a fertile ground for targeting the contrarian happy to take another turn.

In recent years, the pendulum has gone from a heavy notion of expression – if we can even say it exists – to a form of regulation. There are opinions that it is better not to express, let alone hold. They constitute threats to the social order, harmony, offensive sensibilities and spirits. A global police effort to combat inappropriate content on the Internet and social media is attracting the interest of many pbadionate so-called liberal democracies and authoritarian states. A war against hate speech and words generally considered disordered for the social fabric has been declared, and anyone with a properly labeled opinion will be targeted.

Social media platforms are important in this regard. Call it hate, call it inspiration to terrorism: the lines merge, fade, erase from the censor and the legislator. At the G20 summit in Osaka this year, Australian Pentecostal Prime Minister Scott Morrison was busy moralizing the dangers posed by online content that could be considered terrorist. In what he saw as a personal victory, he encouraged G20 leaders to issue a joint statement calling "online platforms to meet the expectations of our citizens that they should not allow the use of their platforms to facilitate terrorism and counter terrorism. [violent extremism conducive to terrorism]. "

The United Nations has not been exempted from such abuses of moral regulation. Last month, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres announced a change of course. "The hate speech may have taken shape, but it is now visible." Sounding like a figure heading for the barricades, the bayonet at hand, António Guterres insisted "We will never stop dealing with it." the Secretary-General has seen "a deep wave of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred".

In his foreword to the United Nations Strategy and Action Plan on Hate Speech, the Secretary-General points to culprits such as social media "and other forms of communication". (No surprise there.) "The public discourse is turned into a weapon for political gain and incendiary rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, women and all the so-called other "."

It does not take long for things to go wrong. The freedom of expression is quite simple: generally, states and authorities will always control it by invoking a dominant general interest. Punishing hate speech is, however, an exercise devoted to endless manipulation. Spot hatred spot the authoritarian witer to prevent it.

Even the UN strategy paper on the subject recognizes the lack of international legal definition of hate speech. A working definition is proposed: "any type of communication, verbal, written or behavioral, that attacks or uses a pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or group based on their identity, in other words, on the basis of their identity. religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, origin, gender or other factor of identity. "

The document seems to challenge the thresholds. Hate speech is not prohibited under international law, preferring to focus on "incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence". Although states are not required to ban hate speech, it was "important to stress that even though they are not banned, hate speech may be harmful". We are left to the unruly world of hurt feelings and offense.

The UN strategy is struggling to find coherence. Meaningless claims are made. "The UN is supporting more speeches, not less, because the essential way is to tackle hate speech." The most important point is the desire to "know how to act effectively", which involves various commitments to tackle the "root causes, motivations and actors of hate speech", "monitoring and badysis". "hate speech" and "the misuse of the Internet and social networks". media for the spread of hate speech and the factors that drive people to violence. " We have been warned.

Fighting hatred in a punishment regime is a dangerous legislative or regulatory game. Given the distinctly omnivorous nature of the digital world, the very idea of ​​seeking a retributive model against bile spouters presents all the hallmarks of failure and zeal. States rush into such cases, challenging anything that is contrarian and could be considered hateful. Political, cultural and religious practices are established as unconditional areas. The UN should be the last body to embark on this path, but is in a rather unhappy society.

As pointed out Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of the protection of freedom of opinion and expression in 2012, "the right to freedom of expression badumes that it is possible to examine, openly debate and criticize, even harshly and unreasonably, ideas, opinions, belief systems and institutions, including religious ones, as long as it does not advocate hatred that incites hostility, discrimination or violence against an individual or a group of individuals. "

Danish lawyer and human rights activist Jacob Mchangama said: "The UN must and must fight against racism and hate speech. But any attempt to broaden the definition and reinforce the application of hate speech bans under international law creates a clear and present danger to freedom of expression already under attack in the world. " Internal authoritarian governments have been encouraged.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College in Cambridge. He teaches at RMIT University in Melbourne. E-mail: [email protected]