|
|
search engine
4,000 web sites may be shut down
Sat Nov 17 19:50:42 2001
Europe hopes to outlaw hate speech online
By CNET News.com Staff
November 12, 2001, 11:30 a.m. PT
By Wendy McAuliffe
The Council of Europe is pressing ahead with a protocol to criminalize hate
speech on the Internet.
After the Cybercrime Convention--the world's first international treaty on
cybercrime--was approved Thursday, the Standing Committee of the Council of
Europe Parliamentary Assembly voted unanimously to back it with a protocol that
defines and outlaws hate speech on computer networks.
Publishing material likely to incite racial hatred is already illegal in the
United Kingdom under the Public Order Act 1986, but there is nothing that can be
done under U.K. law if the company's servers are located in another country,
such as the United States. To date, there have been no successful prosecutions
for race hate material appearing on the Net, so there is no case law to suggest
what is illegal in the United Kingdom.
"It is difficult to apply the U.K. Public Order Act to online
content--there is a lack of clear precedents relating to offline content that we
would need to make a judgment about anything being illegal online," said
David Kerr, chairman of the Internet Watch Foundation. "There are no
consistent laws around the world for overseas content--the U.S. in particular is
safeguarded by the First Amendment."
Drafters of the European protocol have been advised to consider ways of
preventing "illegal hosting," where servers are located in a country
with more lenient laws. Racist organizations, for example, could place their
servers in the United States and hide behind the protection of the First
Amendment.
Racial hatred has taken a backseat in the political agenda in the past, but the
Council of Europe's approval of the Cybercrime Convention--which was drawn up
with the participation of non-European countries such as the United States and
Canada--signifies a new commitment to cracking down on online racist content. A
recent report estimates that at present there are around 4,000 racist Web sites,
including 2,500 in the United States.
"The 11 September has shown that hate speech can become an action of
horrendous magnitude," said Ivor Tallo from the Estonia Socialist Group,
which authored the report. "Therefore, modern technology has to have
safeguards, and one of those is to ban hate speech on the Internet."
The European Commission also recently emphasized the need to control racist
content online, handing $5.37 million (6 million euros) to an Internet safety
project. The funding will form the final part of the Safer Internet Action Plan,
originally set up to tackle illegal and racist content on the Internet.
The new money is designated for an awareness campaign promoting the dangers of
children using Internet chat rooms. A portion of the money will also be used to
set up hotlines across Europe that let people report harmful content encountered
on the Internet. For the next couple of months, the EC will be accepting bids
for funding from European nongovernmental organizations wishing to promote
awareness of safer Internet use.
Staff writer Wendy McAuliffe reported from London.
Internet: Target of globalists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Henry Lamb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
As promised, the Council of Europe has now authorized a protocol to its
Convention on Cybercrime, designed to eliminate "hate speech" on the
Internet.
A report prepared for the Council by the Estonia Socialist Group, claims
"The 11 September has shown that hate speech can become an action of
horrendous magnitude ... therefore, modern technology has to have safeguards,
and one of those is to ban hate speech on the Internet."
The report identifies 4,000 web sites that promote "hate speech," of
which, 2,500 are in the U.S. where they can "hide behind the protection of
the First Amendment."
Both Canada and the United States participated in the development of this
treaty.
Controlling speech is essential to effective socialist control. Public Order Act
1986 already forbids the publication of material in England, that is
"likely to incite racial hatred." The United Nations Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, proclaims in Article 19(2), that "everyone shall have
the right to freedom of expression," but Article 19(3) says that under
certain circumstances, this freedom may be "subject to certain
restrictions."
This U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been around since 1966. No
one has been particularly concerned, because the U.N. has never had the power to
enforce it. This is no longer the case. The International Criminal Court has the
authority to prosecute "crimes against humanity," a term that is as
ambiguous as "hate speech."
The question is: Who will determine what is a "crime against
humanity," or "hate speech"?
The U.N. is moving systematically, and rapidly toward the consolidation of its
control over the flow of commerce. With the adoption of the recommendations of
the High Level Panel on Financing for Development, the U.N. can be in a position
to not only levy global taxes, but to exert considerable economic pressure on
countries that fail to adopt and enforce U.N. policies.
The Convention on Cybercrime was developed during the Clinton era; and we have
not yet heard the Bush administration's view. We have heard administration
support, in general, for the 12 U.N. treaties dealing with terrorism, one of
which is the Convention on Cybercrime. It is not yet clear whether Bush will
withdraw from the Cybercrime treaty, as he did with the Kyoto Protocol, or
whether he will let his determination to end terrorism blind him to the danger
of giving the U.N. the authority to control free speech on the Internet.
Should the U.N. gain this power, look out – it's just the beginning.
Article 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights outlaws "war
propaganda." The U.N. could well consider recruiting ads by the U.S.
military to be "hate speech," or "war propaganda." If the
U.N. gains control over Internet content, what is to prevent it from moving next
to control content of television or radio programs?
These concerns are not new among U.N. watchers. However, they have been rejected
out of hand by most members of Congress, and by the American public. The U.N.
Association, and a host of U.N. supporters, ridicule such concerns, and counter
with the notion that the United Nations is the world's only hope for a peaceful
future.
The United Nations is building a global system of socialist rule, which is
180-degrees away from the system of governance envisioned by the U.S.
Constitution. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law "
... abridging the freedom of speech." Period. This fundamental principle of
freedom has been redefined by the U.N. to mean: "you are free to speak, so
long as what you say is acceptable to our central governing authority."
The principles of freedom, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, are the only
hope for a peaceful future. The followers of Osama bin Laden are victims of
controlled speech. They know only what their "central governing
authority" allows them to know. Their attitudes and behavior are shaped and
controlled by a "central governing authority." They know nothing of
freedom.
Only when all people are free to speak their own minds, make their own choices,
pursue their own dreams and achieve and accomplish their own goals will there be
any hope of a peaceful world.
The United States has an enormous responsibility to defend and protect the
freedom our forefathers fashioned for us, and to never let any military force
take our freedom, or any political force coerce or persuade us to surrender our
freedom to an international body of well-meaning – but misguided –
globalists.
New Internet treaty readied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Unlike most recent international treaties, this new Internet Treaty was
developed in relative secrecy, not by the United Nations, but by the Council of
Europe – a 43 nation alliance, with the United States, Canada, and Japan
participating as "observers."
The treaty has been under development by a special committee of the Council of
Europe since 1997, but their work was classified, until recently. The document
evolved through 27 drafts before being approved by the committee June 22, 2001.
The United States has been involved in the negotiations since the beginning.
Representatives from the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce have
participated in the U.S. delegation.
The treaty seeks to control internet crimes by requiring participating nations
to create a specific, uniform body of laws to deal with unauthorized access,
interference, fraud and forgery, child pornography, copyright infringement.
Racism, and xenophobia are to be addressed in a separate protocol to be added
later.
The working title of the treaty is: "International Convention on
Cyber-crime." It has three primary objectives:
Harmonisation of the national laws which define offences;
Definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global
networks; and
Establishment of a rapid and effective system of international
co-operation."
The treaty addresses these "crimes:"
Offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer
data and systems: illegal access, illegal interception, data interference,
system interference, misuse of devices.
Computer-related offences: forgery and computer fraud.
Content-related offences: production, dissemination and possession of child
pornography. A protocol is to cover the propagation of racist and xenophobic
ideas over the web.
Offences related to infringement of copyright and related rights: the wide-scale
distribution of pirated copies of protected works, etc.
The text of the treaty contains 48 Articles and 11 endnotes.
According to the Council's press office:
The Convention embodies basic rules which will make it easier for the police to
investigate computer crimes, with the help of new forms of mutual assistance.
These include:
preservation of computer-stored data,
preservation and rapid disclosure of data relating to traffic,
system search and seizure,
real-time collection of traffic data, and
interception of content data.
To protect human rights and the principle of proportionality, these rules are
subject to the conditions and safeguards provided for in the law of signatory
states. Specifically, proceedings may not be started except under certain
conditions such as prior authorisation by a judge or another independent
authority.
The enforcement rules discussed, say that "the legal authorities and police
in one country will be able to collect computer-based evidence for police in
another ..." Articles 18 through 21 detail how service providers must be
compelled to provide subscriber information and data; collect real-time data as
requested by "competent authorities," and keep such collection
confidential. Article 19 authorizes search and seizure of equipment and data.
Information about this treaty, as limited as it has been, has caused an
immediate response from the Internet user community. An international coalition
of 28 organizations – from the United States, France, Britain, Australia,
Bulgaria, Canada, Italy, South Africa, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark –
has notified the Council of its opposition to the treaty.
In a letter to the Council, The Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) claims
that the treaty is little more than a "wish list" for law enforcement.
The group is concerned that the U.S. Department of Justice is using the treaty
process to force Congress to enact laws to broaden police power, that Congress
has rejected in the past. "Police agencies and powerful private interests
acting outside of the democratic means of accountability have sought to use a
closed process to establish rules that will have the effect of binding
legislation," the GILC stated in its letter.
Questions arise about who, exactly, will decide which content is
"racist" or "xenophobic?" Will internet service providers be
held liable for the content on websites for which they serve only as host? How
can internet users' privacy rights be protected as required by the Fourth
Amendment?
More to the point: should any governmental authority "police" the
content of web sites? First Amendment advocates recoil at the suggestion of a
national, or an international police force to examine internet content. The
Council of Europe says it is necessary to catch crooks, and prevent "hate
speech."
The contrast between the U.S., and European standards of free speech is
demonstrated in the language of the First Amendment, compared to the language of
the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press ..."
The U.N. Covenant, on the other hand, which, incidentally, is referenced in the
preamble to the cyber-crime treaty, says in Article 19:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any other media of his choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries
with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to
certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and
are necessary ...
This treaty is not the first attempt by the international community to control
the Internet. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has
gone through a tumultuous process attempting to gain some measure of control.
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) has also struggled
unsuccessfully with measures aimed at controlling the exploding Internet
phenomenon.
An Internet systems administrator, identified as "h2odragon," who has
carefully followed the growth of the Internet for more than a decade, says that
"these efforts are like trying to cap a geyser. Every time a new control is
proposed, the Internet blasts-off again and leaves the would-be controllers
scrambling for a new grip."
The current effort by the Council of Europe may gain some traction. Since the
Council was created in 1949, it has developed more than 170 treaties and
international agreements that are now in force.
The Council is not the same thing as the European Union. The Council was created
to fulfill Winston Churchill's dream of a "United States of Europe,"
which he advocated as early as 1946.
To bring the treaty into force, the draft must first be approved by the
leadership of the Council of Europe, then ratified by only five of the
participating nations.
The United States has not yet officially signed the treaty. The U.S. delegation
accepted the draft finalized on June 22, with a noted reservation regarding
Article 41, the "federal clause." If the U.S. delegation can get its
concerns on this clause satisfied, the Bush administration is expected to send
the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
The Council of Europe's 43 member states* helped to prepare the text, and
Canada, the United States, Japan – which have observer status – and South
Africa were also actively involved. They will all be able to sign the
Convention, which will cover most of the world's data traffic.
*Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, "The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.
