Incitement to violence / Hate

Germany tightens online hate speech rules to make platforms send reports straight to the feds June 19, 2020 https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/   Germany’s existing Network Enforcement Act (aka the NetzDG law) came into force in the country in 2017, putting an obligation on social network platforms to remote hate speech within set deadlines as tight as 24 hours for easy cases — with fines of up to €50M should they fail to comply...Yesterday the parliament passed a reform which extends NetzDG by placing a reporting obligation on platforms which requires them to report certain types of “criminal content” to the Federal Criminal Police Office.

A wider reform of the NetzDG law remains ongoing in parallel, that’s intended to bolster user rights and transparency, including by simplifying user notifications and making it easier for people to object to content removals and have successfully appealed content restored, among other tweaks. Broader transparency reporting requirements are also looming for platforms.

The NetzDG law has always been controversial, with critics warning from the get go that it would lead to restrictions on freedom of expression by incentivizing platforms to remove content rather than risk a fine. (Aka, the risk of ‘overblocking’.) In 2018 Human Rights Watch dubbed it a flawed law — critiquing it for being “vague, overbroad, and turn[ing] private companies into overzealous censors to avoid steep fines, leaving users with no judicial oversight or right to appeal”.

 The Impact of the German NetzdG law https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-projects/the-impact-of-the-german-netzdg-law/ Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG law represents a key test for combatting hate speech on the internet. Under the law, which came into effect on January 1, 2018, online platforms face fines of up to €50 million for systemic failure to delete illegal content. Supporters see the legislation as a necessary and efficient response to the threat of online hatred and extremism. Critics view it as an attempt to privatise a new ‘draconian’ censorship regime, forcing social media platforms to respond to this new painful liability with unnecessary takedowns.

This study shows that the reality is in between these extremes. NetzDG has not provoked mass requests for takedowns. Nor has it forced internet platforms to adopt a ‘take down, ask later’ approach. At the same time, it remains uncertain whether NetzDG has achieved significant results in reaching its stated goal of preventing hate speech.

Comment: Is it similar to our SC atrocities act? 

Hate Speech On TV: Are Court Guidelines The Only Solution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoSh0_Ogoc 
Sep 23, 2022 Supreme Court pulled up TV news channels for propagating hate just to gain TRP. The court said that it is the anchor's duty to intervene at the right time. NDTV's motto has always been 'no hate for profit'. On Big Fight, India's longest-running debate Show, we discuss with journalists, politicians and lawyers about whether court guidelines are the only solution to stop the nuisance happening on TV channels.

"Hate peddling is state-sponsored": Journalist Ashutosh | The Big Fight  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI7SzNy2krE   Sep 23, 2022 Journalist Ashutosh on Supreme Court's remarks about hate speech on TV says that the hate is state-sponsored and the anchors are mere puppets. He says that the anchors who dared to speak against it (the state) were shown exit doors. 

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/where-is-our-nation-headed-supreme-court-expresses-concern-about-hate-speech-in-media-asks-why-centre-is-standing-as-mute-witness-209912 

Govt a ‘mute witness’ to hate speech problem, says SC, suggests Vishaka-like code for TV debates https://theprint.in/judiciary/govt-a-mute-witness-to-hate-speech-problem-says-sc-suggests-vishaka-like-code-for-tv-debates/1137477/  BHADRA SINHA
21 September, 2022

The Supreme Court Wednesday criticised the manner in which television channels conduct debates, observing that a methodology should be laid down for such discussions to ensure that they do not fuel hate speech. “If the anchor is going to take a lion’s share of the time of the debate, if the question of the anchor is so longish and time given to the person responding is short and even in that short period, all the time he is run down, made some kind of a rogue, is not fair. You have to be fair to everyone. It all has to be done fairly,” said Justice Joseph, emphasising that a system should be put in place so that there is “real freedom of the press” as well as that of the “listener” so that the latter does not go astray.

When counsel for the National Broadcasting Association (NBA) informed the bench that it had a system to penalise violators, the judges remarked: “But the problem still persists. You may have given 4,000 orders, but what is the effect of such orders?”

 A bench of justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also chastised the Centre for not being “proactive” in addressing the rising phenomenon of hate speech and instead treating it as a “trivial matter”.

The bench also indicated that, in the absence of a specific law, it might lay down guidelines — as was done in the Vishaka judgment that had devised a mechanism to deal with incidents of sexual harassment at the workplace — to define the contours of hate speech. The guidelines, it said, would put in place an institutional mechanism to tackle complaints of hate speech.

for the Judges comment on TV see https://www.emeets.lnwr.in/2968-sc-comments-on-tv-hate-speech 

Systematic incitement plan in Maharashtra  https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/systematic-incitement-plan-maharashtra/article66894385.ece  by Abhinay Deshpand May 26, 2023
Recurring communal incidents over the last six months, with three places reporting clashes within 48 hours across different regions in Maharashtra, portend a disturbing pattern of using religion to fuel political interests. Because they are localised, there is no mass outrage about governance, but they’re potent enough to spread divisions across the State, finds Abhinay Deshpande