The disquiet that the contemporary jurist feels in investigating the thorny question of limits to the freedom of expression is born not only from the usual difficulty of imagining a point of balance relatively stable between the protection of this fundamental freedom and other values .The critical factors appear even more evident when addressing the theme of the hate speech, either for the intrinsic troubles of finding an consistent and satisfactory definition of phenomenon already in the off line world.Two positions on the compatibility of regulation on hate speech confront each other. On one hand scholars who underline the importance of freedom of expression for personal self-determination and for deliberative development of public opinion so that every restriction of this right have to be limited only in particularly case .On the other hand some emphasize the role of hate speech to intimidate vulnerable group and attack their sense of dignity with the result of limiting the free speech of minority communities and compressing the principle of equality.With the development of Internet and the opportunity for each user to spread easily thought in a global sphere the issue of hate speech has created new and original issues. First of all because the regulation hate speech and terrorist speech in EU are similar also because for European legislator there is a strict connection between them. Secondly it is possible to verify that after a short period soft law regulation prevailing in the last two years the self- coregulation model is the preferred one . Specifically censorship of illegal content is entrusted to Internet service provider which Government delegate the power to decide which is legal or not with the option to delete content that are not illicit. This chapter analyzes the regulation about hate speech and terrorist speech offline and online comparing the different approaches and solutions in USA , in European countries and in EU.
Freedom of Speechand Social Networks in the Age of Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis / Abbondante, Fulvia. - (2020), pp. 119-134.
Freedom of Speechand Social Networks in the Age of Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis
Fulvia Abbondante
2020
Abstract
The disquiet that the contemporary jurist feels in investigating the thorny question of limits to the freedom of expression is born not only from the usual difficulty of imagining a point of balance relatively stable between the protection of this fundamental freedom and other values .The critical factors appear even more evident when addressing the theme of the hate speech, either for the intrinsic troubles of finding an consistent and satisfactory definition of phenomenon already in the off line world.Two positions on the compatibility of regulation on hate speech confront each other. On one hand scholars who underline the importance of freedom of expression for personal self-determination and for deliberative development of public opinion so that every restriction of this right have to be limited only in particularly case .On the other hand some emphasize the role of hate speech to intimidate vulnerable group and attack their sense of dignity with the result of limiting the free speech of minority communities and compressing the principle of equality.With the development of Internet and the opportunity for each user to spread easily thought in a global sphere the issue of hate speech has created new and original issues. First of all because the regulation hate speech and terrorist speech in EU are similar also because for European legislator there is a strict connection between them. Secondly it is possible to verify that after a short period soft law regulation prevailing in the last two years the self- coregulation model is the preferred one . Specifically censorship of illegal content is entrusted to Internet service provider which Government delegate the power to decide which is legal or not with the option to delete content that are not illicit. This chapter analyzes the regulation about hate speech and terrorist speech offline and online comparing the different approaches and solutions in USA , in European countries and in EU.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
