Hate speech in electronic space Hate speech vs Freedom of speech

1. HatespeechinelectronicspaceHatespeechvsFreedomofspeech LešekJankovskijEFHR Lawyer Carmen Cara Lorente EVS volunteer 07.09.2017

2. Who are we? • EuropeanFoundationofHumanRights (EFHR) – NGOin Vilniusfounded in 2010; • Aimed at responding to striking increase in abuses of human and national minority rights after joining the EU; • In 7years, EFHR became the leading NGO in the field of human rights in Lithuania. www.efhr.eu http://www.facebook.com/EFHR.EU https://www.facebook.com/EuropejskaFundacjaPrawCzlowieka

3. What do we do? • free legal advice; • preparation of legal documents; • representation in courts and other institutions; • dissemination of information on Legal Aid Center through leaflets in Polish,Lithuanian, Russian and English; • Monitoring of the Internet: • EFHR is searching for the hate-speech, • humiliating comments and discriminatory advertisements.

4. What do we do? • Organizationoffreetrainings, workshopsandlecturesonhumanrights; • EFHR organizeseducationalvisits to regionsfarfromthecapitalof Lithuania; • EFHR implementseducationalprojects.

5. EFHR: a socially involved NGO • cooperation with national and international organizations and universities; • partnership with NGOs; • over 100 volunteers each year; • member of the European Voluntary Service (EVS); • participation at international seminars all over the Europe; • charity activities (campaigns).

6. Good changes: • Nationality in passport; • Websites in national minorities languages (www.vilnius.lt; www.urm.lt); • The Municipality of Vilnius – services to clients in four languages (Lithuanian, English, Polish and Russian) /

7. How is my experience at the EFHR? • Help with legal and political tasks. • Diversity of activities. Trips. • Awesome team at the office. • Opportunity deal with a new challenging experience.

8. Why volunteering at the EFHR ? • Human Rights and Minorities. Law and languages. • Perfect amount of tasks for a volunteer. • Relevant for enhancing CV and gaining skills. • New experiences and new people. • Trips every month and EVS trainings. • What experiences will I live the following 9 months? /

9. Legal reglamentation of Hate Speech in Lithuania /

10. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania Article 25 Everyone shall have the right to have his own convictions and freely express them. No one must be hindered from seeking, receiving, or imparting information and ideas.

11. The freedom to express convictions and to impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions—incitement to national, racial, religious, or social hatred, incitement to violence or to discrimination, as well as defamation and disinformation. /

12. CriminalcodeoftheRepublicof Lithuania Article 170 A person who publiclyridicules, expresses contempt for, urges hatred of or incites discrimination against a group of persons or a person belonging thereto on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, language, descent, social status, religion, convictions or views shall be punished by a fine or by restriction of liberty or by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years. /

13. CriminalcodeoftheRepublicof Lithuania Article 170 A person who publiclyincites violence or a physical violent treatment of a group of persons or a person belonging thereto on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, language, descent, social status, religion, convictions or views or finances or otherwise supports such activities shall be punished by a fine or by restriction of liberty or by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to three years. /

14. Commitcrimewithintent! /

15. FightAgainstHateSpeech HOW DOES THIS SEARCH WORK? /

16. LookingforHateSpeechinthecommentsofnewsorfacebook /

17. Locatingthewriterofthecomment http://whatismyipaddress.com/ /

18. Reportinghim to theprosecutorsoffice/police /

19. The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics Commentincitement to hatredNotincitement to hatred (Court) (investigationsuspended) /

20. Court • Context • Intentornot • Proves • Socialgroup • Other... /

21. Whatisthe role ofthemediacombatingHatespeech? /

22. Delfi vs Estonia /

23. Parties • The applicant: Delfi, internet news portal. The website. • The respondent: Estonia. • Other parties: • SLK, company that provides a public ferry transport services and L. a member of the supervisory board of SLK . • Publishers of comments. /

24. TheFacts • In January 2006, the applicant posted an article on Delfi website named ‘SLK destroyed planned ice road’. • The article attracted 185 comments. Around twenty of them were offensive language and threats against L. • In March 2006, L. requested the applicant company to remove this comments and asked for non-pecuniary damages. /

25. Civil proceedings against the applicant company • Harju County Court: L. against the applicant company. The applicant company cannot be considered as publisher of the comments and has no obligation to monitor them. • Tallinn Court of Appeal: The applicants company has responsibility. L. rights were violated and freedom of expression does not protect this behaviour. L. was awarded for non-pecuniary damages. • The Supreme Court: stated that both the applicant company and the authors of the comments were to be considered publishers of the comments. /

26. Article 10 of the Convention and ECHR’s assessment • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises’. • The EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS observes in this context that the Delfi news portal is one of the largest in Estonia, and also that a degree of notoriety has been attributable to comments. • The ECHR considers that the applicant company was in a position to assess the risks related to its activities and that it must have been able to foresee the consequences which these could entail. /

27. ECHR’s holding • It is stated that there has not been violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression). • ‘coments that amounted to hate speech and incitements to violence, and were thus clearly unlawful on their face, amounted, in principle, to a disproportionate interference with its freedom of expression’. • The applicant company was obliged to pay the affected person the equivalent of EUR 320 in non-pecuniary damages. • the applicant company was liable for the defamatory comments posted by readers on its Internet news portal . /

28. Case 1 On the 17th July 2015, on the www.15min.lt website, beneath an article titled “Russia expanded its borders 2km into Georgia’s territory within one night”, P.V., under the pseudonym “Igor”, published (in Lithuanian) the following comment: “use all your efforts to eliminate Russian degenerates” (lt. “Visom pastangom naikynt išsigimelius rusus!”). /

29. Case 1 The author of the comment admitted regretting his behavior and promised not to commit similar crimes in the future. After considering the case, the court ordered him to pay a fine of 150 Euros. /

30. Case 2 on July 18th and 19th 2016, M.J. under the pseudonym “ABONETAS”, had written two comments under the article entitled “The truth has come to light: the refugee Basir deceived Lithuania” on the website www.lrytas.lt: „Fuck him back to afganistan, his bitch with degradate kids“ „we dont need those fucking muslims, burn them alive. „Bring fuck them back becautse they lied“ /

31. Case 2 Upon examination of the evidence the Court has found the defendant guilty of committing the crimethe Court, on the basis of Article 170(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, declared a penalty of 753,2 EUR, payable within 3 months. /

32. Case 3 In 2015, European Foundation of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as EFHR) had turned to the prosecutor’s office because of the comments posted by R.P. The police found out in the preliminary inquiry that R.P. had published even 15 comments on different websites that he can be held liable for. /

33. Case 3 The District Court of Prienai Region sentenced R.P. for restriction of liberty for one year and a half for the crimes, obliging him to stay at home from 10p.m. to 6a.m. unless it involves work. /

34. Case 4 From April to August 2015, the man wrote 17 offensive comments on the web portal www.lrytas.lt under articles that dealt with issues relating to Russia. /

35. Case 4 After hearing the case and having taken into consideration the man’s character along with all the comments that he had written, the court sentenced the defendant to restriction of liberty for a one-year period and obliged him to continue his work or register at the Labour Office. /

36. Case 5 on February20 th 2017, under the pseudonym “DAR CIA”, had written comment under the article entitled “From april there is a clear plan who will host refugees” on the website www.lrytas.lt: /

37. Case 5 on February20 th 2017, under the pseudonym “DAR CIA”, had written comment under the article entitled “From april there is a clear plan who will host refugees” on the website www.lrytas.lt: „yes we only need monkeys here, there ar fucking like a rabbits, so they should grow in their garbages“ /

38. Case 5 Investigation was suspended because the comment was not ethic, but there is not clear that comment was written directly for the refugees /

39. /

40. /