The questions that you ask on the future law against the hate speech online

this Wednesday, July 3 start of the examination to the Parliament the proposal of law aiming to combat hate on the Internet. The latter, championed by the mp LR

The questions that you ask on the future law against the hate speech online

this Wednesday, July 3 start of the examination to the Parliament the proposal of law aiming to combat hate on the Internet. The latter, championed by the mp LREM Laetitia Avia, claims to give new responsibilities to the online platforms with the proliferation of hate speech. The Figaro answers to your questions about this text, already very controversial.

" READ ALSO The interview of Laetitia Avia, the rapporteur of the text on the law against the cyberhaine

● That is proposed in the text?

The proposed law envisioned by Laetitia Avia relies on different measures to constrain the major platforms (YouTube, Facebook, etc, qualified by the text of"accelerator content") to remove the objectionable material online, and punish more severely the perpetrators. At the heart of the device imagined by the member, a requirement for Web companies to remove within 24 hours the words, images, or videos "clearly hate", after the notification of one or more users, under penalty of 250.000 euros of fine for a natural person and € 1.2 million for a corporation. The CSA may also impose a financial penalty of up to 4% of the annual turnover of a global company that has not put in place sufficient means to moderate the hate speech online. The text also wants to streamline the reporting content issues, using a single button for all platforms, and to facilitate the blocking of sites is illegal.

● How the text defines what is hate speech online?

This last is defined in a broad manner by the draft law of Laetitia Avia. It concerns incitement to violence against a person because of his religion, his country, his skin color, sexual orientation, etc, but also the organization of prostitution, sexual harassment, child pornography or incitement to terrorism. This definition could be further expanded during the debate in the Parliament. A number of mps have, in effect, proposed amendments to bring in other content categories in the list of what needs to be moderate in 24 hours, as the "attacks to the physical appearance or even the content that is "brand agricultural activities or animal husbandry". This case is intended, for example, the actions environmentalists against the slaughterhouses.

● Why such a bill now?

the origin of this text, there is a report, co-written by Laetitia Avia, and commissioned by the president of the Republic and the Prime minister. Emmanuel Macron had committed, a year ago, to better combat hate on the Internet, making the observation of the weaknesses of the moderation of large sites such as Facebook, Google (owner of YouTube), Twitter and others. The project was also echoed in other laws or provisions taken in Europe. Germany, for instance, with a regulatory framework that is forcing social networks to moderate the objectionable material within 24 hours. In Europe, a code of good conduct has the same system, but only to the platforms volunteers.

● say the major platforms of the Web?

not surprisingly, they are quite adverse to the text. They consider that the period of withdrawal in 24 hours is unachievable, and will push them to make decisions too quickly, without the prior intervention of a judge. They are also concerned about the soft edges of some of the provisions. "We wonder about the relevance of a text targeting now a scope much broader offences at the risk of compromising its application", said ASIC, the Syntec Digital and TECH IN France, the main professional association of the digital, in a press release published on Monday.

● Who else is opposed to the text and why?

other organizations have also expressed reservations. This is the case of the Council of State (which has forced Laetitia Avia to modify certain provisions), the national digital Council or the national Council of the bar. All the respondents consider that the place of a judge is not large enough in the device imagined by Laetitia Avia, particularly for the benefit of administrative authorities such as the CSA. Other experts are concerned about the implications of the text on the law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press. "It is necessary to repeat it with force, this is not the law that is wrong, what are the financial resources that are dedicated to the fight against cyber-hate," explained Master Christophe Bigot, a lawyer who defends in particular the Figaro , in a column published on our website.

The text has finally been much criticised by la Quadrature du Net, a French association for the defence of freedoms online. Among its criticisms, it considers that the text is "dangerous", but also "in vain" because it won't attack the business model of the platforms. "This model is the one of the attention economy, that accelerates the distribution of content by making us stay longer and interact more, even to promote the invective, conflicts and caricatures and to "censor by burial" the about more subtle to listen and help out", say the activists.

Hate speech online : a regulation welcome ? - Look on Figaro Live

Date Of Update: 05 July 2019, 00:00