Fighting online misinformation: the delicate balance between regulation and safeguarding the right to freedom of expression

1. Introduction

This article sets out contextualising the rise of digital hate speech before evaluating the validity of restrictions on freedom of expression.. The analysis will reach the conclusion that a failure to address contributory digital infrastructure, a lack of a clear definition of “hate speech” and the use of a perception-based metric for harm signify that, ceteris paribus, regulation runs the risk of unduly encroaching on an individual’s right to  freedom of expression.

1.1 The Historical Context 

The right to freedom of expression is ingrained in Art.19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Art.10 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1978). The right itself is considered to be of fundamental importance to a democratic society, with the absence of censorship often regarded as one of the overt manifestations of a free society, in which individuals and groups may openly critique power and instigate debate on topics of national or regional interest [Smith, 2017]. However, an individual’s right to freedom of expression is not unfettered with international law recognising several legitimate limitations, such as when an individual utilises their freedom of expression to incite hatred [Smith 2017].

Since the inception of rights discourse, the right to freedom of expression has been the subject of vehement debate regarding proportionate limitations. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its general comment, has underscored the delicate balance that must be maintained, so as to not compromise the purpose of the right itself. Detailing that restrictions must be prescribed by law and in furtherance of a specified overriding aim, in recognition that limitations on permissible speech may be open to arbitrary state abuse.[Article, 1983]

Staunch advocates of an absolute right to freedom of expression are famed for extreme decrees advocating for the liberation of speech, such as that made in the United States Supreme Court: ‘I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ [Bleich 2011] However, even Mill, whose position on the parameters of permissible speech caused much contention, advanced the ‘harm principle’, whereby expression may be legally curtailed.[Mill, 1859] International Law explicitly cites that protection, from both physical and mental harm, is imperative. Indeed, there is a significant body of  historical evidence to justify limitations on an individual’s right to freedom of expression, glimmering back to the devastating real-life consequences of Nazi ideology.[Alegre, 2023]

Nonetheless, impediments to an individual’s right to freedom of expression are notorious ethical dilemmas. On the one hand, censorship provisions run the risk of granting the state a means of distorting an individual’s worldview, similar to totalitarian regimes. On the other, the state holds a positive legal obligation to protect individuals from a tsunami of abhorrent online rhetoric [Smith, 2017].

2. Hate Speech In The Digital Realm

Although hate speech is not a 21st-century phenomenon, as Molnar highlights, whether and how to restrict the right to freedom of speech in the digital realm poses one of the most significant societal and regulatory challenges facing our generation due to the rapid expansion and pervasiveness of communication technologies. The controversy over hate speech regulation is exacerbated by communities beset by a profound sectarian and racial division. This is coupled with conflicting worldviews, resulting in a near-constant struggle to balance values of free expression with equality, tolerance, diversity, and respect [Molnar 2012].

The pandemic saw a record rise in online hate speech, addressed by The United Nations in their global action plan to combat hate speech. Here it highlights that online communities have experienced a disturbing surge in the weaponisation of speech designed to dehumanise vulnerable groups, including the use of xenophobia, racism, and general intolerance since the pandemic began.[UN Strategy 2024]

An increasingly polarised social rhetoric has resulted in legislators around the globe scrambling to establish more stringent regulatory frameworks for digital hate speech. Such frameworks are premised on the notion that the societal consequences of racist or sexist speech directed at vulnerable groups results in sufficient social harm to warrant regulation of speech. A degradation of our communal tolerance was well-illustrated in a recent gathering in Rome where hundreds of far-right rally participants shockingly performed a fascist salute outside the former headquarters of a neo-fascist party.[Reuters, 2024] Hence, in one sense, the “scramble” is duly merited with our shared values of tolerance and equality. Migratory influx consequential to the climate crisis would test this, considering that the EPB estimating that 1.2 billion people could be displaced by 2050 [Change, 2024] with hate speech likely to have an adverse inference for integration.

Despite the manifest need for governmental address, we must consider our growingly invasive digital environment. Legislation must acknowledge that the right to freedom of speech is of fundamental importance in a democratic society, and the irreversible dangers of allowing an  encroachment on it. Hate speech regulation, at its worst, holds the power to hand over a means of authoritarianism to our state, to which there is no means of redress for the individual. This age-old fear of censorship is emboldened in the digital age. Similarly, Veliz iterates that our governments now possess unprecedented access to deeply personal data, which has the potential to buttress authoritarianism and undermine freedom of speech.[Veliz, 2021] In light of this, it is imperative to extensively debate any provisions that propose a limitation on this liberty, to protect the legitimacy of our democratic society.

2.1.2 The Absence Of A Clear Definition Of “Hate Speech”

In part, controversy surrounding the regulation of hate speech may be attributed to the reality that there is no universally accepted definition of “hate speech.” In an effort to provide a unified framework The United Nations, in their UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, defined hate speech as “any kind of communication in speech…that, attacks [or uses] …discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis….[of] religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”[Bleich, 2011]

The report suggests that there are images, cartoons, memes, and symbols in regulations, not currently encompassed in historic legal provisions for incitement to hatred.[Molnar, 2016] Although the Plan of Action is not  legally binding, it attempts to define hate speech, more broadly than “incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” 

2.1.3 Ominously Vague Provisions:

Regulatory enactments of hate speech legislation often seek guidance [Molnar, 2011] from Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [1978] The Covenant requires a ban on “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination”. Alternatively, the provision of Article.4 [1983] of the International Convention on The Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination  mandates all parties to “condemn all propaganda …based on theories of racial superiority and incitement to racial discrimination…”, and to eradicate the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred against any race or group of persons.” A failure to define “hate speech” has led to vague regulatory provisions, which fail to clearly define the crime they seek to address, creating significant tension with the fundamental liberty of expression.

This may be visualised in Scotland’s recently enacted Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, which has sparked controversy over its ostensive vague provisions. In theory, these could see a perpetrator facing up to seven years in prison.[2021] A memorandum from the Scottish Parliament details that there is no accepted definition of a “hate crime,” nor have they sought to enact one,  meaning that liability is subjective In light of this, opponents of the bill are questioning the unprecedented degree of power wielded by the police and courts to determine the criteria of a “hate crime.”[Bill, 2021]  The Scottish prime minister has sought to mitigate this, by citing a high threshold for criminal liability.[Molnar, 2012] As Molnar emphasises, regardless of  a consensus on the  prohibition of harmful speech warranting intervention, the challenge remains concisely defining such speech. Without a clear remit, the issue arises when for example: condemnation, insult, or disdain can be reasonably interpreted as  persecutory, and degrading. Alternatively, one which individuals fall within a protected category and how this will be subject to change.[Molnar, 2012] Thus, as Gelber highlights, from a conceptual basis, criminal sanctioning for hate speech is concerning, since the realistic consequence of  an individual’s imprisonment, raises ethical and legal quandaries on the appropriate threshold to warrant a custodial sentence.[Molnar, 2012]

3. Regulation

3.1 The Global Regulatory Landscape

As Henson aptly points out, there is currently a “patchwork” of online hate speech regulation where the definition of hate speech differs between social media platforms (tasked with moderation) and national legislators. Hence, it makes regulation ethically challenging due to the absence of consensus, with regards to when a provocative statement becomes “hate speech” and who the arbiter should be.[Henson, 2023] In addition, regulation faces immense challenges given the internet’s “boundless” nature. The reality that nation-states place starkly varied importance on free speech, further strains responsible management of a virtual, global environment without jurisdiction. [Henson, 2023]

Although the concepts underpinning regulatory provisions are similar, the level of restriction differs globally, a striking contrast in regulatory approaches is explicitly demonstrated between Germany and The United States. Due to its genocidal culpability in recent history, Germany has implemented stringent provisions criminalising speech that degrades an individual’s dignity and suggests their inferiority. This includes a ban on Holocaust denial, which may result in incarceration.[Network Enforcement Act 2017] In contrast, the United States exhibits a well-established absolutist approach to free speech, which prioritises its constitutional emphasis on this liberty, electing to curtail it only on national security grounds.[UDHR, 1948]

3.2 The Domestic Framework

On a different note, Ireland remains an outlier within the European Union for its failure to revise its anachronistic domestic legislative framework to reflect online hate speech regulation. Presently, Irish law  regulates this phenomenon through the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act.[UDHR, 1948] International pressure[European Parliament, 2024] has led to the proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which makes headway for new laws to manage online hate speech. Exemplified by particularly rigorous safeguards for various protected characteristics, such as gender identity and expression, as well as disability.[European Parliament, 2024]

Last year, the proposed Bill passed through the Dáil Éireann, the Irish Parliament’s lower house, with 110 to 14 votes, in favour.[Oireachtas, 2023] However, the enactment has been widely controversial, with many citing governmental overreach.[Horan, 2024] A majority of the dissenting views, stem from a nebulose definition of ‘hate crime’ and ‘harm’. In the latter case, legislation refers to the offence as  “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to have been motivated by prejudice based on a person’s age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.” [Criminal Justice(Incitement to violence or hatred and hate offences) Bill 2022] The Bill establishes penalties of up to five years in prison for speech which it considers intentional or recklessly  to incite violence or hatred.[Bill, 2022] The Bill permits search warrants to confer authority upon a named member to seize a suspect’s computer(or digital device) for as long as necessary. Moreover, it allows them to retain lawful access to all of the information on said computer.[Bill, 2022]]Additionally, the Bill aims to facilitate securing convictions for hate crimes, by allowing prosecutors to rely solely on the use of hostile words, gestures or symbols.[Bill, 2022]

On the one hand, according to the scholar Bleich, successful prosecutions are vital to prove that the state is serious about curbing hateful speech. Conversely, hefty prison sentences and excessive fines render such legal provisions excessively intrusive.[Bleich, 2011]  Further to this, in certain instances, including the proposed Irish Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, the defensive arguments of no ill-intent or lack of awareness are revoked. As a result, this means that individuals may be held criminally liable for hate speech regardless of their intentions; including the  circulation of an offensive  “meme.”

4. The Dangers of Overly Restrictive Legislation

The broad and far-reaching repercussions with respect to what constitutes “hate speech” exhibited in legislation across the European Union go to the very core concerns regarding the restriction of free speech. As Bleich asserts, many restrictions imposed on  free speech, in efforts to tackle hate speech, are not as inimical to freedom of expression, as once feared. However, she draws attention to the reality that a failure to strike an adequate balance with such provisions, may cause incrementally closed discourse in our democratic society. Advocating that marginal restrictions on discriminatory speech or narratives are positive because they help to preserve community cohesion and public order when such speech is designed to incite violence but importantly, not when such speech is merely harmful or offensive. Gelber concurs with Bleich, noting that Western society has undergone a significant positive value shift in recent years.It has been redefined by multicultural democracies, which has aggravated the risk of online, openly hateful expression.[Bleich, 2011]

A common thread throughout arguments against restrictive legislation is the potential set of implications for democracy; as Dworkin iterates, freedom of hate speech is the cost we must bear for enforcing laws – hostile actors oppose. Furthermore, liberal democracy requires all citizens to have a vote and a voice, including the expression of prejudices, to allow for citizens to have a reasonable degree of agency. In other words, Dworkin perceives “hate speech” as the price we pay for political legitimacy; if we want legitimate laws against violence or discrimination, we must allow opponents to speak, and then legitimate said laws through democratic channels. From his absolutist stance, he contends that notwithstanding how foul and vicious the hatemongers’ contribution is; they must have their say or laws enacted in their opposition will not have legitimacy, asserting that the immoderate  prohibition of expressions, inclusive of negative expression, subvert democratic justification for insisting that everyone, obeys laws prohibiting  inequality.[Gelber, 2021]

5. The Dangers Of Non-Intervention

On the other hand, there is a substantiated argument for the regulation of digital hate speech; as Justice Kagan highlights, our society is marred by inequality, which is perpetuated and promoted by certain forms of speech.[Dworkin 2006]

5.1 The Promotion Of Intolerance

Indeed, arguments calling for its regulation are significantly bolstered by the pervasive, and growing nature of hate speech itself. As Henson[2023]highlights, the prevalence of digital hate speech sky-rocketed during the pandemic and has shown no signs of slowing down, with the vast majority of victims, those of minorities. Building on this, he argues that online hate has become somewhat normalised, with perpetrators exhibiting a sense of moral impunity, free to express radical ideals in the digital environment’s insulated “bubble.” [Kagan 1993]

Advocates for speech regulation assert that hate speech induces “psycho-emotional harm,” keeping in existence feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred amongst minorities.[Belvujuam, 2010] Perhaps, the most compelling argument for stringent regulation of speech is the quantity of hate speech victims. As Sullway highlights, when an armed man shot children in a Jewish daycare centre, he intended both to harm  and to “send a message” directed at all non-Whites and Jews. Subsequent to the attack, synagogues and other Jewish centres felt obliged to increase safety measures. Thus, it illustrates that a “hate speech” attack directed at an individual because of their immutable or prominent characteristics, gradually erodes an entire group’s perceived safety and security.[Sullway, 2004]

The Hate Track policy echoes Sullway’s observations, describing the removal of online hate as not solely felt by adversely affected individuals and groups, but the entirety of the online community. Such removal ensures that digital fora remains civil, safe and democratic. Additionally, the UN Strategy on hate speech illustrates that silence or inertia, mayflag an indifference to hatred, which in turn could further an individual’s sense of impunity.[United Nations, 2023] Should the legal and political environment inhibit neutrality towards hate speech, it  sets a tone for communal values. Therefore,regulation holds a symbolic role in transmitting socio-political values. Hate crime laws paint a symbolic statement where, for example, implicitly negative views of homosexuality  are  neither normative nor acceptable in our society.[United Nations, 2023]

This follows the frequently cited argument about the quality of our informational ecosystem or the “digital public sphere,” which seeks to establish a causal link between the quality of our democracies and that of regulation to create a clean digital ecosystem.[United Nations, 2023] Parker argues that hate speech represents a gross misuse of the right to free speech, regarding it as objectionable for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons.She adds that hate lowers the tone of public debate and erodes our community’s moral sensibility. Beyond that she describes how this form of  speech  marginalises its targets, and strips them of their individuality. Further, she describes it as a dangerous phenomenon, as it fosters a climate in which victimised groups may be demonised and discriminatory conduct  normalised. In advocating for legal regulation, Parker views it as a symbolic gesture of our community’s moral identity, helping to shape the collective ethos.[Molnar, 2012]

5.2 Consequences of Tolerance to “Hateful” Narratives 

Potentially, one of the most morally abhorrent examples of the weaponisation of free speech is the Rwandan Genocide. In December 2002, the ICTR convicted the architect of the Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines on the grounds of genocide, incitement to genocidal conspiracy and crimes against humanity. The defendants were party to a media conglomerate which had run a campaign for years dehumanising Tutsi people, especially women. The court held that “hate speech” could be considered as serious as other crimes against humanity, where it ran alongside a campaign of persecution. In sentencing Ngeze to life in prison, Judge Pillay stated, “You were fully aware of the power of word …to disseminate hatred and violence- …without a firearm or any physical weapon, you caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians.’[Case No.ICTR-99-52-T] The case itself is a powerful illustration of the horrific potential consequences of a failure by the state to intervene in a campaign of hate speech.

As outlined, there is merit to the call for the regulation of hate speech, however, running in parallel is the potential for overly restrictive laws on the right to freedom of speech which may repress rather than promote the human rights agenda. This point is furthered by Bennett, who highlights that speech regulation advocates follow the assumption that only ‘bigots’ will have their speech penalised by hate speech regulation, suggesting that this assumption reflects an unwarranted optimism about the competence or virtue of the government, highlighting that it may lead to ideologically motivated censorship. Bennett argues that hate speech laws combine one of the most dangerous government powers, further asserting that in the absence of a clear definition of hate speech, there is no limitation to the potential abuse of such provisions.[Bennett 2016]

6. The Efficacy of Hate Speech Regulation

6.1 The Root Cause?

An argument for regulating speech would be significantly more convincing if it were evidentiary,  that said regulation would be effective. However, a  frequently unaddressed point, in the proposed legislation, is the “root cause” of an increasingly hateful online rhetoric. The United Nations Action Report on hate speech explicitly references algorithms employed by social media platforms as a contributory factor.[United Nations, 2011] From a different standpoint, it does not refer to recommendations for amendments to digital infrastructure in conjunction with such provisions for hate speech.[Digital Services Act, 2022]

For example, concepts such as an “Echo-Chamber” which refers to a situation whereby an individual’s beliefs are amplified and reinforced as a result of a closed media system insulated from rebuttal, largely contributed to by personalised algorithms in the social media context, are left unaddressed in regulations designed to improve our digital space. When individuals voice their opinions within this community, they usually receive similarly positive feedback. This positive feedback loop is suggested to lead to a powerful confirmation of belief affect and a newfound apprehension to accept rebuttal. Subsequently, this leads to the individual becoming “polarised” in their often hateful ideology.[Vicario, 2019] Such polarisation may foster the spread of hateful or divisive content, perpetuating a sense of moral impunity or righteousness.[Bashky, 2020]

Thus, it appears significantly problematic to leave such digital architecture unaddressed, which could lead an individual towards extremist ideology, rather than addressing the “root” causes to a rise in digital “hate speech.” Hence, this piece submits that regulation which is left unassisted by changes to digital infrastructure, is unlikely to be effective and may act counter-intentionally.

Instead, Molnar highlights avenues such as counter-speech and education that facilitate the community’s engagement in open discourse resolutions that are missing from regulatory approaches to hate speech.[Molnar, 2012]  Gelber concurs with Molnar, viewing the solution to hate speech as a reconceptualization of participation in the free speech ideal. He emphasises the need for counter-speech developments that would enable responses to hate speech that contradicts hateful messaging while simultaneously counteracting the disempowering effect of restrictions on speech, marrying the free speech vs hate speech debate.[Molnar 2012]

Conclusion:

In closing, this article frames, identifies, and later scrutinises the debates surrounding regulatory approaches to online hate speech, concluding that digital hate speech regulation is an important symbol of our communal values. On the contrary, hate speech regulation without addressing: digital architecture, a clear definition of hate speech, and taking into account perceptions, fails to adequately balance an individual’s right to freedom of expression with attempts to stem hateful views.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

[1]Universal Declaration of human rights (1948).

[2]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1978).

[3]Rhona Smith, International Human Rights Law (2017) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

[4]IBID.

[5]General Comment No. 10: Freedom of expression (Art. 19) : 29/06/1983.

[6]Bleich E, ‘The Rise of Hate Speech and Hate Crime Laws in Liberal Democracies’ (2011) 37 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 917.

[7] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

[8]Susie Alegre, The Freedom to Think (Atlantic Books 2023).

[9]Rhona Smith, International Human Rights Law (2017) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

[10]Chapter 1, Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012.

[11](United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action On Hate Speech) <https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/advising-and-mobilizing/Action_plan_on_hate_speech_EN.pdf> accessed 10 March 2024.

[12](Fascist rally in Rome sparks Italian opposition outrage | Reuters) <https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/fascist-rally-rome-sparks-italian-opposition-outrage-2024-01-08/> accessed 10 March 2024 .

[13](Over one billion people are at threat of being displaced by …) <https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ecological-Threat-Register-Press-Release-27.08-FINAL.pdf> accessed 10 March 2024. 

[14]Véliz, C. (2021) Privacy is power: Why and how you should take back control of your data. Brooklyn: Melville House. 

[15] Bleich E, ‘The Rise of Hate Speech and Hate Crime Laws in Liberal Democracies’ (2011) 37 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 917.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Introduction Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012.

[18] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 11^th June 1993.

[19] The International Convention on The Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination

[20]Ibid.

[21]Hate crime and public order (Scotland) bill. (n.d.). https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/policy-memorandum-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf 

[22]Ibid.

[23]Chapter 1 Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012.

[24] Ibid.

[25]Henson, Anna. (2023). Virtual whac-a-mole: addressing the patchwork regulation of online hate speech. Michigan State International Law Review, 31(1), 115-156.

[26]Ibid.

[27] Network Enforcement Act 2017.

[28] Universal Declaration of human rights (1948).

[29]Specifically Article.3(1).

[30]‘Time to Criminalise Hate Speech and Hate Crime under EU Law: News: European Parliament’ (Time to criminalise hate speech and hate crime under EU law | News | European Parliament) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240112IPR16777/time-to-criminalise-hate-speech-and-hate-crime-under-eu-law> accessed 14 March 2024.

[31]Article 3.(1)-(2).

[32]Éireann D, ‘Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022’ (House of the Oireachtas, 21 June 2023) <https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/> accessed 14 March 2024.

[33]Horan N, ‘Hate Speech Bill Is “restrictive and Undemocratic” Warns Barrister, as 7,000 People Sign Petition’ (Irish Independent, 21 January 2024).

[34]Article.7(5) Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022.

[35]IBID.

[36] Under Subsection 15 see specifically, Article 3.(B) and Article 4 (A)-(B) Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022.

[37]Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022.

[38] Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022.

[39]Bleich E, ‘The Rise of Hate Speech and Hate Crime Laws in Liberal Democracies’ (2011) 37 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 917.

[40]Bleich E, ‘The Rise of Hate Speech and Hate Crime Laws in Liberal Democracies’ (2011) 37 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 917.

[41]Gelber, K. (2021). Differentiating hate speech: a systemic discrimination approach. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24(4), 393–414.

[42]Dworkin R, Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton University Press 2006).

[43]Elena Kagan, Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V., 60 U. CHI. L. REV. 873, 873 (1993).

[44] Henson, Anna. (2023). Virtual whac-a-mole: addressing the patchwork regulation of online hate speech. Michigan State International Law Review, 31(1), 115-156.

[45]Uladzislau Belavusau, Instrumentalisation of Freedom of Expression in Postmodern LegalDiscourses,3(1) EUR. J. OF LEGAL STUD. 145, 148 (2010).

[46] Sullayway 2004 psychological perspectives on hate crime laws:DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.3.250.

[47]United Nations. (n.d.). The many challenges of tracking hate. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/impact-and-prevention/challenges-of-tracking-hate.

[48]United Nations. (n.d.). The many challenges of tracking hate. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/impact-and-prevention/challenges-of-tracking-hate.

[49]Ibid.

[50]Chapter 2 Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012.

[51]The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze (2003) Case No. ICTR-99-52-T.

[52] John T. Bennett, ‘The Harm in Hate Speech: A Critique of the Empirical and Legal Bases of Hate Speech Regulation’ (2016) 43 Hastings Const LQ 445.

[53]United Nations. (n.d.). The many challenges of tracking hate. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/impact-and-prevention/challenges-of-tracking-hate.

[54]Provisions under Digital Services Act, are distinguished by user choice rather than governmental policy intervention.

[55]M. D. Vicario, W. Quattrociocchi, A. Scala, F. Zollo, Polarization and fake news: Early warning of potential misinformation targets. ACM Trans. Web 13, 1–22 (2019).

[56] The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci. Rep. 10, 16598 (2020). E. Bakshy, S. Messing, L. A. Adamic, Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).

[57] chapter 1 Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012:

[58] Ibid.