Update definition of hate speech, students urge legislators

Maltese students have urged policymakers and stakeholders to tweak the traditional definitional of hate speech, in order to reflect the digital era.

A solution to protect people from hate speech must be found in balance with protecting the fundamental human right of freedom of expression: thus, the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA) Malta argued, the line between such right and its limitations should be clarified.

In its policy paper published on Human Rights Day, marked yesterday, ELSA argued that consultative meetings dealing with hate speech should be organised more frequently, in an attempt to reach consensus on a concrete definition of hate speech and hate speech online.

Hate speech is not easily defined and while posting malicious online comments that insult a person or a group of people might seem hateful, it is not the function of hate speech regulations to protect against hurt feelings, ELSA students argued.

However, the association also pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights has noted that it may be considered necessary “to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance”.

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation has defined hate speech “as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin”.

In Malta, hate speech is seen as an intent “to stir up violence or hatred against another person or group on the grounds of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, religion or belief or political or other opinion” and is punishable by law.

The Criminal Code, the students argue, is more inclined in preventing violence against the dignity of the persons targeted than limiting one’s freedom of expression by punishing those who resort to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

“It is clear that there exists a strong legal framework that is potent enough to prevent violence but at the same time open to engagement in constructive dialogue that needs to be undertook in any democratic society in order to have social progress,” the students argue in their policy paper.

“However, the question of how these provisions of law are applied to the Internet and social media remains an unanswered question.”

The underlying problem, they argued, was the regulatory bodies of the Internet and social media.

ELSA launched its policy paper on hate speech at the San Anton Palace

The students go on to urge parliament to fully implement and transpose the EU framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. They propose improving recording and data collection of hate crime incidents whilst also calling for “self-regulation for journalists which gives ethical standards to journalists”.

Among others, the students also suggest “removing a given number of websites from the internet” and the setting up of a more effective platform for victims to report hate speech.

But education remains more important, which sees the state and organisations collaborating on campaigns to combat hate speech.

“Education in all its various forms, be it formal and informal, plays a crucial role in the prevention of intolerance and hate speech,” ELSA argued. “It is important to impact, at an early age, the fundamental values of democracy which constitute the social fabric of society.”

School curriculum, the students said, should foster an inclusive education whilst educators need “to be trained and given the tools to overcome their own prejudices”.