Hate Speech and Internet Law

It has been noted that the mere compensation for non-pecuniary damages can be insufficient to compensate the harm to the dignity of hate speech victim. Indeed, since hate speech can damage the reputation of the targeted individual and/or group, the victims could be more satisfied if their reputation and precedent status were restored. In order to compensate the damage, the victim should be able to seek alternative remedies, such as publication of the court decision, retraction or apologies.
As stated by Viglione, seeking redress for non-pecuniary damages is claimed to have not only the function of contrasting the pain caused by the crime, but it also works as a deterrent. From what we have observed above, it could be maintained that hate speech is a phenomenon that cannot be solved only through pecuniary compensation. Indeed, this solution would not address the roots of the problem, which lie in the perpetrator's beliefs and in society in general. Therefore, apologies could constitute a proper solution to address the issue and could be applied either by courts or in out-of-court settlements.
As a matter of fact: "Apologies may be a possible alternative that seems to be compatible with the judicial remedial system not only in common law but also in civil law countries." In this case, transplantation of law could be useful in tackling the hate speech phenomenon both offline and online. In fact, apologies are already used as remedies for discrimination in the Australian law.
Additionally, apologizing means expressing regret for the crime and, even though it does not necessarily mean that the apologizer will not reiterate the behavior in the future, it can relieve the victim of the pain suffered, when explicitly sought by the plaintiff.
However, the apology cannot be considered the only remedy to repair the damage; indeed, it could be added to pecuniary compensation. Moreover, it should be noted that apologies can promote settlement and, therefore, avoid the costs of litigation, especially in the Italian legal system.
To conclude, apologizing can be conceived as a humiliation for the perpetrator, which could not only result in the wrongdoer not reiterating the same behavior again, but also, especially in case of public apology (for instance on social media), in a warning for other potential hate speech perpetrators.
The educative role of apologies has been claimed to be dangerous, since they could cause an indoctrination of the dominant ideology, setting instances of the wrongful behaviors that are punished by law. However, this risk should be reduced by educating society on the most important values, such as the respect of diversity, and therefore not by imposing a dominant ideology on what should and should not be said, but by educating people on respecting human dignity, while freely expressing their opinions.
I reckon that this goal is not easy to achieve; however, as will be discussed in the last chapter of the present dissertation, multiple instruments, such as education, initiatives and organizations exist and are being implemented in order to help in the fight against hate speech.