Private regulation and public policy: toward effective restriction of Internet hate propaganda.

• Author: Bailey, Jane

Internet hate propaganda revives debate regarding competing visions of freedom of expression and democracy--pitting the unregulated marketplace of ideas vaunted in US First Amendment jurisprudence on racist speech against approaches such as Canada's, which envision a role for the state in limiting de-liberating exercises of private power unchecked by the marketplace itself. Despite the relative ease with which Internet hate propagandists may shift the "location" of their message to First Amendment-protected servers in the US, national and international public regulation of hate propaganda have not outlived their usefulness. Existing private restriction of hate propaganda may assist in resisting First Amendment hegemony, but is hot an adequate substitute for protecting fundamental national and international commitments to equality and diversity. The practical drawbacks of many private enforcement mechanisms are compounded by policy concerns underlain by a record of the private market's inadequacy in ameliorating the conditions of historically disadvantaged groups. Certain of these drawbacks might be alleviated through continuing expressions of policy pursuant to public regulation aimed at guiding private regulation and imbuing it with a degree of transparency and accountability. In the long term, creation and monitoring of an Internet Service Provider ("ISP") model code of conduct by a respected international body, such as the United Nations, might assist in more systematically harnessing private action in service of public human rights objectives.

La propagande haineuse sur Internet ravive le debat entre des conceptions divergentes de la democratie et de la liberte d'expression. A l'idee d'un marche d'idees non reglemente, soutenue aux Etats-Unis par la jurisprudence sur le premier amendement de la constitution de ce pays, s'oppose l'approche canadienne. Au Canada, la constitution confere aux autorites gouvernementales le pouvoir de limiter l'exercice de la liberte d'expression la ou le marche ne le fait pas. En depit de la relative facilite avec laquelle la propagande haineuse peut elire domicile sur des serveurs americaius proteges par le premier amendement, la reglementation publique nationale et internationale n'est toujours pas inutile. Les restfictious de nature privee imposees a la propagande haineuse peuvent contribuer a faire obstacle aux lacunes resultant de l'hegemonie du premier amendement, mais ne sauraient se substituer a la protection d'engagements nationaux et internationaux en faveur de l'egalite et de la diversite. L'auteur suggere qu'a ces inconvenients pratiques s'ajoute l'incapacite demontree du marche a ameliorer la condition de groupes historiquement desavantages. Il serait possible de remedier a certains de ces inconvenients, dans la mesure ou la reglementation publique puisse guider et surveiller les mecanismes prives de controle, creant nne certaine transparence et un certain degre de responsabilite. L'auteur conclut qu'a long terme, la creation et la surveillance d'un code de conduite pour les fournisseurs de services Interner (ISP) par une organisation internationale respectee telle que les Nations Unies pourrait permettre de guider l'activite privee de maniere a ce qu'elle puisse servir de maniere plus systematique des objectifs publics lies aux droits de la personne.

Introduction I. Internet Hate Propaganda: The Scope of the Problem II. Canadian Approach to Hate Propaganda A. Amendment of the CHRA and the Code 1. CHRA Amendment 2. Code Provisions and Amendment B. Canadian Constitutional Review of Hate Propaganda Restrictions III. First Amendment Protection of Hate Propaganda IV. Conflicting Democratic Visions V. First Amendment Limitations on State-Based International Regulation of Internet Hate Propaganda A. Procedural Agreements Calling for State Action: Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters B. International Agreements Harmonizing Substantive Law: The Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention VI. Emerging Private Regulation A. Privately Implemented Technological Solutions 1. Filtering 2. Zoning B. Acceptable Use Policies 1. The America Online Model 2. Limitations on Effective Restriction Through AUPs C. US-Based Self-Regulatory Organizations 1. ISP Organizations in the United States 2. Limitations on Effective Enforcement Through United States ISPAs D. Ad Hoc US ISP Responses to Extra-territorial Public Policy 1. "Pledging" Proactive Observance of "Local" Laws 2. Private Enforcement in Response to Public Decisions E. Private Regulation Is Not a Substitute for Public Regulation 1. Practical Limits 2. Policy Issues VII. Organizing Private Action to Work Toward Public Goals A. Goals for "Publicizing" Private Action B. Advancing the Project 1. Who Might Be of Assistance? 2. What Steps Should Be Taken? C. Shortcomings Conclusion We have exported to the world, through the architecture of the Internet, a First Amendment in code more powerful than out own First Amendment in law.

Lawrence Lessig (1)

Americans take free speech a bit more seriously than the Brits, the French, the Germans and the rest of the world. And, yes, America could become the guardian of free speech worldwide by offering the protection of the First Amendment over the Net to millions of people who have been denied the right to speak freely in their own countries.

Adam D. Thierer, CATO Institute (2)

Under the First Amendment the government must leave to the people the evaluation of ideas.... Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others. One of the things that separates our society from theirs is out absolute right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even hateful.

The ideas of the Klan may be propagated.... The Nazi Party may march through a city with a large Jewish population.... People may seek to repeal laws guaranteeing equal opportunity in employment or to revoke the constitutional amendments granting the vote to blacks and women. They may do this because "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message [or] its ideas ..."

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (3)

Introduction

The relatively low cost and the dissemination power of Internet communication make it an increasingly preferred medium for hate propagandists. Canada, other nations, and international collectives have developed or modified existing public regulation to address this growing problem. Unfortunately, First Amendment (4) protection of the growing ride of hate propaganda emanating from servers located in the United States challenges the ability of other nations to pursue alternative public policies, such as the one underlying recent Canadian legislative amendments enacted to clarify the application of restrictions on Internet hate propaganda. The export of the First Amendment approach to Canada is not properly characterized as an export of free expression. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5) protects free expression and does so on the basis of a comprehensive conception of both public and private forces affecting individual liberty, in accordance with international human rights commitments.

The First Amendment challenge to restricting hate propaganda emanating from within the US suggests that technology has overtaken public regulation at both national and international levels. Given that private action is generally not subject to US constitutional scrutiny, emerging regulation by private actors in the US presents an opportunity to restrict the cross-border flow of hate propaganda. For both practical and policy reasons, private regulation is an inadequate substitute for public regulation, particularly in the area of human rights. Nevertheless, ongoing ad hoc private efforts to restrict hate propaganda and other illegal and offensive content invite consideration of the ways in which public initiatives may be used to encourage more systematic private efforts while at the same time imbuing them with a degree of public accountability.

This paper explores these issues in seven parts. Part I describes the scope of the Internet hate propaganda problem. Part II examines the Canadian approach to hate propaganda, focusing on legislative amendments designed to specifically address the Internet. Part III contrasts Canadian and US approaches, demonstrating the First Amendment challenge to restricting the cross border flow of hate propaganda emanating from the US. Part IV briefly discusses the different underlying democratic visions animating the two approaches, arguing that the US approach has no prior claim in furthering the interests of democracy. Part V explores the degree to which the First Amendment undercuts the efficacy of public international responses based on state action, suggesting an investigation of private regulatory opportunities is necessary. Part VI identifies and discusses practical and policy limitations to some current private on-line content regulation. Part VII comments on the prospect for an internationally facilitated strategy that seeks to integrate more publicly accountable and systematic private regulation with vigilant enforcement of public regulation.

1. Internet Hate Propaganda: The Scope of the Problem

   Hate propaganda (6) is disseminated on the Internet using a variety of applications, from Web sites to newsgroups to e-mail to on-line games. The exact scope of the problem remains unclear. While there has been some effort to collect and analyze Internet hate propaganda based on race, ethnicity, and national identity ("racist propaganda"), until recently there has been less focus on hate propaganda based on other grounds, such as gender and sexual identity. Nevertheless, the available reports suggest widespread and growing use of the Internet to disseminate messages of...