[Foreign Policy] UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech 2019-08-10

In June 2019 the UN presented its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech. It is supposed to ensure social cohesion. On closer inspection however conflicts with democracy and freedom of expression are revealed.

1. The Strategy and the Plan
2. The Details
3. The Ethic of Censorship
4. Liability

The Strategy and the Plan

In January Secretary-General of the UN Antonio Guterres launched the Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech. According to Guterres the biggest challenge facing governments and institutions today is to show that they respond to people's fears with answers. [1]

And so I believe the biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care -- and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers, concrete answers [1]

Und nach Angaben von Guterres sind Hassrede, Xenophobie und Intoleranz die größten Herausforderung vor der Regierungen und Institutionen heute stehen. And according to Guterres hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance are the biggest challenges facing governments and institutions today. [1]

Third, we need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance.
We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past. Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. [1]

On 18 June 2019 the Guterres "UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech" was published. In it a dependency is drawn after which hate speech directly erodes social cohesion and can lead to violence.

“Hate speech is, in itself, an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” the Secretary-General said during the briefing. “More broadly, it undermines social cohesion, erodes shared values and can lay the foundation for violence, setting back the cause of peace, stability, sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights for all.” [3]

[2] [3] In an article on the topic Guterres also stated that such behavior is according to him intentional. Thus no distinction is made between criticism and hate speech and from the beginning it is assumed to be on purpose. [4]

To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat.
A deep and sustained spirit of mutual respect and receptivity can transcend posts and tweets fired off in a split second. We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere. There can be no illusion of safety when hate is widespread. [4]

According to the UN hatred is increasingly advancing into society and weakening common humanity as it progresses. This is happening in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. However it does not explain what is meant by liberal democracies and authoritarian systems. [2,p.1]

This is not an isolated phenomenon or the loud voices of a few people on the fringe of society. Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened. [2,p.1]

According to the UN this should not restrict freedom of expression. However since no explicit distinction is made between hate speech and criticism and institutions are to be commissioned there is at least one dilemma. [2,p.1]

Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law. [2,p.1]

The Details

The UN plan sets out a number of key points to be implemented. Afterwards the UN wants to recognize, supervise, collect data and analyze hate trends in order to know more. [2,p.3]

1. "The strategy and its implementation to be in line with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech; "
2. "Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector, starting with individual women and men. All are responsible, all must act; "
3. "In the digital age, the UN should support a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech; "
4. "We need to know more to act effectively – this calls for coordinated data collection and research, including on the root causes, drivers and conditions conducive to hate speech. "

Here a common understanding and driver for hate speech should be generated. In addition appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate their impact in the best possible way.

The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression. [2,p.4]

UN entities should keep up with technological innovation and encourage more research on the relationship between the misuse of the Internet and social media for spreading hate speech and the factors that drive individuals towards violence. UN entities should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society. [2,p.4]

It is interesting that the UN also wants to directly influence media and educational institutions. For this purpose partnerships with new and traditional media should be established and strengthened. Whether and how the freedom of the press should be respected is not explained.

UN entities should take action in formal and informal education to implement SDG4, promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy. [2,p.4]

The Ethic of Censorship

To be against group-related human hatred is in the first approximation correct. However measures should not limit potential criticism and thus freedom of expression. Freedom of expression and democracy go hand in hand. For the free competition of ideas the possibility to get to know information and ideas and to be heard is by definition indispensable. Exceptions are the call for crimes and appeals that can disturb public peace such as the false warning of fire in cramped rooms. Everything else would be a some sort of dictatorship.

Censorship of hatred would require people or rules from people who distinguish hatred from criticism. In any case it would be people to differentiate. Hate and criticism however have a common intersection of interpretation depending on one's own position. In addition it is not yet clear whether the statement or the position of the addressed person is questionable or illegitimate. Thus a censorship would again be a projection of power even if it was driven by morality.

In addition a restriction of freedom of expression threatens a deradicalising dialogue and the visibility of illegal illegal expressions. One does not do justice to the meaning of the free democratic basic order and the possibility of free exchange without freedom of expression. And the rules of this exchange are determined by the legislature. For this most states require freedom of expression. In addition there are already paragraphs in the Penal Codes against the public call for crimes.

Liability

The published plan of the UN is not an agreement. However it is unequivocal that the plan should commit. And if there was an agreement it would be politically compulsory. This means that individuals could then invoke such an agreement and sue for their content. [5]

[1] Secretary-General's Press Conference 2019-01-18
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2019-01-18/secretary-generals-press-conference
[2] UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH - May 2019
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/UN%20Strategy%20and%20Plan%20of%20Action%20on%20Hate%20Speech%2018%20June%20SYNOPSIS.pdf
[3] Secretary-General Launches United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action against Hate Speech, Designating Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention as Focal Point 2019-01-18
https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/pi2264.doc.htm
[4] António Guterres - The Wildfire of Hate Speech 2019-06-18
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/articles/2019-06-18/the-wildfire-of-hate-speech
[5] Rechtsgutachten zum Migrationspakt
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/557692/8d3c42d79eba902c13660271ba0a32f4/wd-2-052-18-pdf-data.pdf