The European Union has announced a new raft of measure to remove posts from the internet that raise questions overs its attitude to free expression.
The unelected European Commission yesterday trumpeted an alliance with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Microsoft to expand their regime of removing posts from the internet which it considers objectionable.
EU agreement with tech firms on hate speech guaranteed to stifle free expression @indexcensorship https://t.co/NA0ZPuRo41
— Index on Censorship (@IndexCensorship) May 31, 2016
According to an announcement on Tuesday, the companies will now aim to take down content they believe is “illegal hate speech” within 24 hours.
They want to deprive objectionable message of “opportunities… to spread virally” with by effecting swift take-downs.
The companies cite terrorist material and incitement of racial hatred of examples of content they want removed.
However, sceptics have raised concerns about the ability of the EU and tech companies to draw boundaries that adequately protect free speech.
@EU_Commission I shudder everytime government is involved in the censoring of the internet. Where does fair comment end & hate speech begin?
— David Atherton (@DaveAtherton20) May 31, 2016
Eyebrows will be raised in particular over Facebook being appointed as a free speech custodian after revelations that it repeatedly sought to scrub conservative viewpoints from their platform.
A spokesman for Ukip criticised the “nebulous and vague” language of the Commission’s announcement.
It refers repeatedly to “illegal hate speech” without defining what that may be in the context of differing member state laws and different platforms’ online standards.
Heat Street tried to find more information about how Twitter would implement the changes, but a spokesman would only provide a copy of their generic community standards.
Free speech campaigners have also hit out at the changes.
The head of the Index on Censorship said: “Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe.
“This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.
“The agreement once again devolves power to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it – a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t.”
“It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police – or to challenge.
“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial – yet legal – content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”
