Hate Speech and Internet Law

1 
 
Introduction 
 
Nowadays, it is still hard to define accurately and unanimously hate speech and, 
consequently, hate speech online. The complexity of this term inevitably leads to 
complications in identifying and regulating the phenomenon, since limitations of speech 
can interfere with freedom of expression. In addition, the speed in which hate speech is 
spread through social media platforms makes it even harder for authorities to intervene 
before any damage to a person or a group occurs. 
For these reasons, international and national laws alone cannot regulate this 
phenomenon. A joint effort by authorities, Internet intermediaries, organizations and 
users of social media is deemed necessary. However, before analysing the different 
objectives and methods that the above-mentioned actors pursue and apply in the Internet 
realm, this dissertation will try to define hate speech, finding a definition that can 
encompass all the different instances of this widespread phenomenon.  
Studies of hate speech online have shown that it takes place among different 
groups and aims to underline and strengthen stereotypes and prejudices. Anonymity on 
social media has allowed people to express their opinions without shame or the fear of 
being punished for their ideas. This can result in a lack of those filters that normally 
regulate speech offline and prevent people from saying something that could hurt 
others, in order to preserve their reputation. Therefore, social media not only offer a 
public space where everyone can post about all types of topics. They offer also the 
opportunity to create secret groups and group chats where all the members of a group 
can share their opinions, possibly even under fake names (when the terms of service 
allow it). 
In light of the evolution of Internet and social media, it is becoming extremely 
difficult to ignore the existence of hate speech online. There is an urgent need to address 
the safety problems caused by the huge amount of content hosted by social media. The 
existing body of research on hate speech offline and online shows that, although the 
phenomenon is spread all over the world, both governments and the media still do not 
address it exhaustively and properly.
2 
As a matter of fact, the issue of hate speech is a complex one. It has been noted 
that in the international and national legislation, hate speech is defined as the advocacy 
to incitement to harm a specific group or member of that group, which is discriminated 
and insulted on different grounds, the so-called “protected characteristics”. The 
definition traditionally refers to words that directly incite to violent acts; however, hate 
speech can also indicate expressions that foster prejudices and intolerance towards a 
certain group or individual, since those mere expression can also fuel violent and 
discriminatory acts. In addition, the aim of hate speech can be twofold: first, it aims to 
diminish the members of a group; second, it reinforces the perpetrators’ sense of in-
group, which they paradoxically believe to be under threat
1
.  
Furthermore, the definition of hate speech is sometimes manipulated in the 
political discourse, to accuse political opponents and foster criticisms against them
2
. 
Therefore, the concept of hate speech is so broad and complex that it can change 
according to the context and the speaker/s involved. Additionally, sometimes, as we will 
see in the next chapters, words that are normally used as discriminatory slurs, are 
sometimes used among members who share a protected characteristic and, in this case, 
cannot be considered hate speech.  
However, the most important aspect that characterizes all instances of hate 
speech, as outlined in the research body analyzed in this dissertation, is its 
dehumanizing function. Indeed, the main consequence of hate speech is the loss of 
dignity affecting the victim/s. Therefore, one of the remedies to hate speech cases, 
suggested by some researchers in the field of law, are apologies
3
, as we will explore in 
the first chapter of this dissertation. 
The issue of hate speech has been a controversial and much disputed subject 
within the field of law, politics and psychology, since its regulation has often raised 
some concerns.  
However, despite the recognized importance of analyzing and tackling the hate 
speech phenomenon, there remains a paucity of research on its concrete manifestations 
 
1
 Alves, T., Gagliardone, I., Gal, D. and Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Retrieved 
from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231, pp. 10-11. 
2
 Ibid. 
3
 Brutti, N., Carroll, R., Vines, P. (eds.), Apologies in the Legal arena. A comparative perspective, 
Bonomo, 202.
3 
online and on the body of law that regulates the issue. Furthermore, there seems to be 
little published research on how social media address the problem and on the other 
instruments that can be used to solve it and to foster awareness on its consequences, 
such as education and independent initiatives.  
This study seeks to obtain data which will help to address these research gaps. 
Indeed, it intends to determine the extent to which hate speech online can be censored 
and whether social media are actually held liable for the illegal content on their 
platforms. Furthermore, the international and national legal background which, 
sometimes directly sometimes indirectly, addresses hate speech offline and online will 
be analyzed, with the aim to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the provisions.  
This investigation has both a theoretical and practical nature. On one hand, it 
outlines the main legal provisions on hate speech and the fundamental aspects of social 
media functioning and hate speech policies. On the other hand, it offers an overview of 
some cases of hate speech online, examining courts’ decisions, and it suggests concrete 
educative solutions to address the roots of the issue.  
Furthermore, this dissertation provides updates on the most recent norms and 
proposals specifically aimed at regulating activities on the web, such as the UK Online 
Harms White Paper and the Digital Services Act, as well as information and 
considerations on some controversial provisions, such as Hungary’s anti-LGBT law.  
Moreover, the present research addresses the issue of censorship regarding erotic 
art and shadowbanning, which apparently do not seem to be linked to hate speech. 
However, by giving a closer look to this problem, we will see that social media tend to 
overregulate less offensive content and, on the other hand, still fail at regulating the 
most dangerous content, besides being discriminatory in their decisions. 
It is hoped that this research will contribute to a deeper understanding of the hate 
speech phenomenon and its legal and psychological consequences. My main reason for 
choosing this topic is that I was indirectly experiencing so many instances of hate 
speech online on the social media I check every day, especially on Instagram and 
Facebook, that I began to ask myself: why is this content still visible on these platforms 
and what can I do to make the difference? For this reason, I conceived this research. I 
believe that most users are bothered by hate speech content, but they do not always
4 
report it, because they probably think that their actions cannot change certain 
radicalized bias or that the issue is not as serious as it seems. 
Therefore, this dissertation is not only addressed at experts of the field, but also 
at users who desire to know what they can practically do to address hate speech cases. 
Furthermore, I hope this research will reach those who feel defenseless and are 
constantly targeted by hate speech because of their unchangeable and unique nature.  
As regards the structure of my dissertation, it is composed of three themed 
chapters, each including various subchapters.  
Chapter One analyses the legal background of hate speech, at the international 
and national level, for instance outlining the provisions conceived in UK, USA and 
Europe. The research will not present a mere list of norms, but it will try to outline the 
main critical aspects that emerge from the provisions and court cases, as well as the 
strengths that can inspire future legislation.  
In short, the present dissertation will explore the following international laws: 
• 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), focussing on the right to 
equal protection under the law (Article 7); 
• 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; 
• 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), with special attention paid 
to Article 19 (the right to freedom of expression) and Article 20 (the prohibition 
of advocacy to hatred that can cause discrimination, hostility or violence);  
• 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination (ICERD); 
• 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against 
Women (CEDAW). 
After examining the international legal background, the research will focus on the main 
national laws, such as: the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter 
on Human Rights and People’s Rights, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam 
and the Arab Charter on Human Rights.  
Three main approaches, describing the extent to which censorship is justified by 
law, will be identified. For instance, the European Union has chosen to create a balance 
between freedom of expression and the censorship of hate speech, preferring to issue 
measures that social media should follow, without completely interfering in the
5 
elaboration of the community standards of each platform. This can be seen, for example, 
in the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, to which the major 
social media companies, as well as the popular video sharing platform YouTube, have 
committed. The Code suggests key elements that social media should consider when 
structuring their policies, such as transparency and accountability. Platforms that adhere 
to the Code also participate in monitoring exercises, where their responses to hate 
speech complaints are analysed.  
On the other hand, there is an approach that aims to make freedom of expression 
a cornerstone of any legislative measure, protecting it at all costs. This approach is the 
one applied, for instance, by the United States, which, true to the First Amendment of 
the Constitution, exempts the government from the obligation to monitor and regulate 
the content of the public discourse.  
The third approach is completely opposite to the second, as it is based on the 
selective use of hate speech laws, which are manipulated at will by governments to 
repress the ideas of minorities and, in general, any ideology that differs from the 
dominant one. It is an approach adopted mainly in the Arab world, where freedom of 
expression is often conceived as a threat to the dominant religion and tradition. 
However, as regards the European legislation on hate speech, the following 
provisions, conventions and proposals will be explored: 
• 1953 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); 
• 2000 E-Commerce Directive, focusing on the liability regime of host provider; 
• 2004 International Convention on Cybercrime and the 2006 Additional Protocol 
to the Convention; 
• 2007 Audiovisual Media Services Directive and its amendments; 
• 2008 Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of 
racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, suggesting the expansion of 
the protected characteristics; 
• 2009 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EUCFR); 
• 2016 Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online; 
• 2020 Digital Services Act (DSA). 
With regard to the E-Commerce Directive, it addresses the issue of the legal 
involvement of social media platforms in the publication of illegal content and hate
6 
speech by their users. In this regard, we will see that the Directive elaborates the 
distinction between access provider, cache provider and host provider, in order to 
clearly define the liability regime of each Internet service provider.  
The category on which this thesis will focus most is that of host providers, i.e., 
those providers that offers a space on their servers to store information permanently. 
The responsibility may actually fall on them, since, unlike the other types of providers, 
the content hosted by them is not temporary, so it should be monitored with more 
attention. For instance, I am referring to posts and comments on social media and the 
fact that, when these are unlawful or incite to hatred, they constitute damage to the 
dignity of the victims and cannot go unnoticed for long periods of time. For this reason, 
according to the Directive, host providers will be held liable for illegal content posted 
by their users if, after being made aware of and identifying such content, they have not 
acted promptly to remove it. In other words, host providers, and therefore social media, 
are not held responsible for hate speech if they are unaware of its presence on their 
platforms.  
However, this issue remains very complex, as it could be considered that social 
media should monitor, to some extent, the posts and comments that are constantly 
published by their users and try to prevent hate speech, especially during important 
events. We will see, in fact, that they would possess the tools to perform such controls 
or otherwise prevent the sharing of certain content at the time of posting, for example by 
temporarily blocking the use of certain slurs. Repeatedly, in this thesis, the awareness 
that it is difficult to manage the huge amount of illegal content on social networks is 
emphasized and that, while recognizing that each post or comment should be analyzed 
in its context, it would represent a major workload for moderators.  
However, as regards the Code of Conduct, we will see that, although it is the 
first Code aimed at regulating illegal content online, it has some drawbacks and it is not 
completely applied by the social media that committed to it.  
With regard to national provisions, this dissertation will give an overview of the 
legal framework on hate speech in some EU countries, i.e. Italy, Austria, Germany, 
Poland and Hungary, as well and non-EU countries, such as the UK. Special attention 
will be dedicated, indeed, to the UK Online Harm White Paper and the German 
Network Enforcement Act.
7 
Chapter Two begins by looking at the community guidelines on hate speech of 
some of the most popular social media, i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and 
TikTok. In addition, the research will compare the different ways in which hate content 
can be reported on various social platforms and how they respond to the complaints, 
directly analysing their reactions to my reports.  
As already stressed above, the present dissertation aims at updating previous 
research, for example including instances of hate speech raised from the Covid-19 
pandemic. I believe this is a crucial topic, since it is during pandemics, when people feel 
more frustrated, that still existing prejudices and hatred against certain categories 
emerges and exacerbates.  
Moreover, Chapter Two will briefly focus on the relationship between 
algorithms (also called AI, that stands for Artificial Intelligence) and social media, 
suggesting the critical aspects that should be considered when implementing this useful 
technology in hate speech regulation. 
As regards Chapter Three, the final chapter of this dissertation, it will underline 
the importance of transversal knowledge in the proper understanding of the hate speech 
phenomenon. To achieve this goal, the following initiatives, aimed at fostering 
awareness and education on the topic, will be explored, i.e. Hatebase; Odiare Ti Costa; 
the network #iamhereinternational; the TikTok hashtag #SwipeOutHate; the 
#MediaAgainstHate campaign; Stop Hate for Profit; the Austrian app BanHate and the 
No Hate Speech Movement. 
Furthermore, it will be stressed the importance of educative sources and courses 
on the topic. In this respect, Facebook has launched a Digital Literacy Library, which is 
an educative portal that could inspire other social media to make similar instruments 
available for teachers and other users.  
The conclusions of the third chapter are aimed at underlining the importance of 
education in fostering awareness on hate speech. Moreover, some exercises that could 
be proposed in classroom will be suggested, hoping to promote further theoretical and 
practical research. 
The research data in this thesis is drawn from many sources concerning 
legislation on hate speech, some cases related to it and the terms of service of different 
social media. In addition, through an in-depth analysis of some instances of hate speech