Recently the widespread use of Internet has shown th dark side of the web. The improvement of hate speech in general and the growth of propagandistic videos, images and speech on social network causes a great alarm in users and Governament. The are two different answers about this problem in western democracy. The Usa approach is firmly convinced that the guarantee of First Amendament is insured for all kind af speech and no liability could be given ISPs according to DMA. At the same time social network on the basis of terms of contract have introduced the possibility to delete speeches that are against the company policy. The criteria according to the speeches could be delete are not clear and generally determined upon by an algorithms. In europe there are variety of approaches on this issue because different are the sensitivity in that area. It dipends on different views about restrictions on freedom of speech. So we have different legislation in Germany, France Spain and italy. About incitment of terrorism many legislators introduce rules that compress many fundametal rights to insure public order. Eu at the same time has introduce a Code of Cunduct in 2016 , a soft law, that impose to ISPs to delete , in 24 hours hate speechs and incitment to terrorism . So comparing two approaches is easy to verify that on social network we have in USA a private censorship while in Eu a collateral censorship.

Freedom of speech and social network in the age of terrorism: a comparative analysis

Fulvia Abbondante
2018

Abstract

Recently the widespread use of Internet has shown th dark side of the web. The improvement of hate speech in general and the growth of propagandistic videos, images and speech on social network causes a great alarm in users and Governament. The are two different answers about this problem in western democracy. The Usa approach is firmly convinced that the guarantee of First Amendament is insured for all kind af speech and no liability could be given ISPs according to DMA. At the same time social network on the basis of terms of contract have introduced the possibility to delete speeches that are against the company policy. The criteria according to the speeches could be delete are not clear and generally determined upon by an algorithms. In europe there are variety of approaches on this issue because different are the sensitivity in that area. It dipends on different views about restrictions on freedom of speech. So we have different legislation in Germany, France Spain and italy. About incitment of terrorism many legislators introduce rules that compress many fundametal rights to insure public order. Eu at the same time has introduce a Code of Cunduct in 2016 , a soft law, that impose to ISPs to delete , in 24 hours hate speechs and incitment to terrorism . So comparing two approaches is easy to verify that on social network we have in USA a private censorship while in Eu a collateral censorship.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11588/743646
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact