Sign up now to receive our regular news briefs.

A Web of Hate: European, U.S. Laws Clash on Defining and Policing Online Anti-Semitism

February 28, 2013 1:44 am 0 comments

There are many laws on Holocaust denial in Europe, including in Germany, Belgium, and Austria, where British Holocaust denier David Irving—who is pictured here—was convicted and imprisoned in 2006. On the Internet, however, anti-Semitism online has proven difficult to define and to police. Photo: David Irving.

Last October, the hashtag #unbonjuif (#agoodjew) was trending as the third-most tweeted subject in France. Users jumped on the chance to tweet phrases like “a good Jew is a dead Jew,” ultimately forcing the French Jewish students’ union (UEJF) to file a lawsuit against Twitter for allowing that content to appear.

When a French court decided this January that Twitter must reveal the identities of users who sent out those anti-Semitic tweets, a cross-continental debate ensued on the difficulty of defining and policing anti-Semitism online.

The French incident was hardly the first case of hate in social media and on the Web. The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s 2012 Digital Terrorism and Hate Report found more than 15,000 websites, social networks, forums, online games and apps that disseminated hateful content. Also in Europe, a report this month by Community Security Trust showed that the number of anti-Semitic incidents via social media in the United Kingdom grew nearly 700 percent in the past 12 months.

“Social media is becoming more and more of a problem for us if you look at anti-Semitism,” Ronald Eissens, co-founder of the Dutch anti-racism group Magenta and the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), which works to counter cyber-hate and has 21 members in 20 countries, told JNS.org. “There’s a lot of it around. Prosecution is a lot harder because most social media are based firmly in the U.S.”

In France, the Gayssot law of 1990 was passed to repress racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic acts and criminalizes Holocaust denial. French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson later claimed the law violated his right to freedom of expression and academic freedom, but the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled against him. France punishes the dissemination of racist content online with fines and terms of imprisonment. These penalties increase if the dissemination was public—for example, on a website rather than in a private email—according to the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

“The French justice system has made a historic decision,” Jonathan Hayoun, president of the UEJF, said in a statement about the French court’s recent Twitter ruling. “It reminds victims of racism and anti-Semitism that they are not alone and that French law, which protects them, should apply everywhere, including Twitter.”

France has faced off against an American online giant before. In 2000, France prosecuted Yahoo! for selling Nazi memorabilia online. In France, it is illegal to display such items unless they are in a theatrical or museum setting. A French court ruled at the time that Yahoo! had to make the auction site inaccessible to French users or pay a fine. Although it never legally accepted the French ruling, Yahoo! eventually chose to remove the auction.

Then, in 2012, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube complied with German law by either taking down material posted by a neo-Nazi group or by blocking users in Germany from access to the content, according to the New York Times.

Additional broad laws have been passed on racism and cyber-hate. The Council of Europe’s Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention was passed in 2003 and became enforceable in 2006 after receiving the required number of signatures. The protocol criminalized racist and xenophobic acts committed through computer systems. The European Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia was then passed in 2008.

In 2005, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)’s Working Definition of anti-Semitism was released, defining the phenomenon as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”

Modern anti-Semitic propaganda from the International People's Party. Photo: Herr Wolf.

“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities… More specifically, manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as Jewish collectivity,” the definition reads.

Though that definition was never legally binding, various international bodies, several law enforcement agencies and European courts have used it in their investigations. It is essentially meant to “help police forces who are monitoring anti-Semitism on the ground to have a better understanding of what anti-Semitism is,” Kenneth Stern, the AJC’s specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism, told JNS.org.

Under the First Amendment, hate speech in the U.S. must be likely to cause violence or harm before it can be deemed criminal. But in the European Union, speech can be prohibited even if it is only abusive, insulting or likely to disturb public order, noted Talia Naamat, legal researcher at the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry in Jerusalem.

There are many laws on Holocaust denial in Europe, including in Germany, Belgium, and Austria, where British Holocaust denier David Irving was convicted and imprisoned in 2006. In Spain, Holocaust denial was a criminal violation until 2007, when a court ruled in the case of neo-Nazi activist Pedro Valera that Holocaust denial could not be punished with imprisonment because the act falls within free speech. But in January, Spain’s justice minister proposed a new bill that would make Holocaust denial a criminal offense if it incites violence. The bill is expected to be approved later this year.

“I believe this case best encapsulates the debate (in Europe) between freedom of expression versus incitement to hatred, as well as the varying degrees of protection from hate speech,” Naamat told JNS.org. But frequently, such European laws appear as part of a broader “incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred or discrimination,” or as part of the general prohibition of genocide, she said.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch penal code includes a broad anti-discrimination provision, ” so, anti-Semitic content in essence will be prosecuted if it’s brought to the prosecutor as falling under the anti-discrimination legislation,” Eissens said.

Modern anti-Semitic propaganda from the International People's Party. Photo: Herr Wolf.

Three cases were recently filed against Jeroen de Kreek, a Dutch Holocaust denier who posted his material on several websites. Having already lost one case, he will face the other two this spring. In this case, Kreek is likely to be convicted as “his material is blatantly anti-Semitic,” according to Eissens.

The UK has only general legislation regarding harassment and discrimination, The Public Order act of 1986, which states that “a person who uses threatening words or behavior, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” Other laws, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Malicious Communications Act, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, were passed in subsequent years.

“Our perspective is that things which are illegal offline should be illegal online,” Dave Rich, spokesman for Community Security Trust, which conducted the February survey on social media anti-Semitism in the UK, according to the International Business Times. “Racial abuse laws were made from incidents in the street, not online.”

European laws on the issue, however, are not uniformly applied across the EU. Even the European Court of Human Rights does not offer an accepted definition for “hate speech,” instead offering only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the “hate speech” is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech. Prosecutors therefore exercise a great amount of discretion, as do policemen, who must classify the act as a hate crime or not, and judges, who must assess which action or speech is likely to disturb public order. “That assessment can be subjective,” Naamat said.

INACH’s Eissens emphasized that prosecuting anti-Semitism is “a thing we do but not the only thing we do.” The organization is also highly focused on counter-speech projects, education and prevention, though Eissens does believe that the law is necessary in some extreme cases.

“It’s a bit like the police arrests 20 people this week and the same people are back on the streets doing it again one month later, or they’re joined by another 40; it doesn’t mean that the police has to stop working,” he said.

Stern believes that it is generally “more effective to have hateful speech marginalized than censored,” particularly by having high-ranking officials or politicians call it out. In 2005, Stern was part of a debate in the U.S. between Jewish groups on the issue of anti-Semitism online. One school of thought was in favor of removing anti-Semitic content, the other side believed such content “is a way to train kids in this new medium,” on how to distinguish hateful speech from benign speech, he said.

The bigger problem, Stern said, is when anti-Semitism, online or otherwise, is expressed as normal, polite dinner conversation. “I’ll be less worried if it’s half a dozen neo-Nazis with tattoos sitting in a bar someplace,” he said.

Last October, the hashtag #unbonjuif (#agoodjew) was trending as the third-most tweeted subject in France. Users jumped on the chance to tweet phrases like “a good Jew is a dead Jew,” ultimately forcing the French Jewish students’ union (UEJF) to file a lawsuit against Twitter for allowing that content to appear.

When a French court decided this January that Twitter must reveal the identities of users who sent out those anti-Semitic tweets, a cross-continental debate ensued on the difficulty of defining and policing anti-Semitism online.

The French incident was hardly the first case of hate in social media and on the Web. The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s 2012 Digital Terrorism and Hate Report found more than 15,000 websites, social networks, forums, online games and apps that disseminated hateful content. Also in Europe, a report this month by Community Security Trust showed that the number of anti-Semitic incidents via social media in the United Kingdom grew nearly 700 percent in the past 12 months.

Social media is becoming more and more of a problem for us if you look at anti-Semitism,” Ronald Eissens, co-founder of the Dutch anti-racism group Magenta and the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), which works to counter cyber-hate and has 21 members in 20 countries, told JNS.org. “There’s a lot of it around. Prosecution is a lot harder because most social media are based firmly in the U.S.”

In France, the Gayssot law of 1990 was passed to repress racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic actsand criminalizes Holocaust denial. French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson later claimed the law violated his right to freedom of expression and academic freedom, but the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled against him. France punishes the dissemination of racist content online with fines and terms of imprisonment. These penalties increase if the dissemination was public—for example, on a website rather than in a private email—according to the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

The French justice system has made a historic decision,” Jonathan Hayoun, president of the UEJF, said in a statement about the French court’s recent Twitter ruling. “It reminds victims of racism and anti-Semitism that they are not alone and that French law, which protects them, should apply everywhere, including Twitter.”

France has faced off against an American online giant before. In 2000, France prosecuted Yahoo! for selling Nazi memorabilia online. In France, it is illegal to display such items unless they are in a theatrical or museum setting. A French court ruled at the time that Yahoo! had to make the auction site inaccessible to French users or pay a fine. Although it never legally accepted the French ruling, Yahoo! eventually chose to remove the auction.

Then, in 2012, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube complied with German law by either taking down material posted by a neo-Nazi group or by blocking users in Germany from access to the content, according to the New York Times.

Additional broad laws have been passed on racism and cyber-hate. The Council of Europe’s Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention was passed in 2003 and became enforceable in 2006 after receiving the required number of signatures. The protocol criminalized racist and xenophobic acts committed through computer systems. The European Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia was then passed in 2008.

In 2005, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)’s Working Definition of anti-Semitism was released, defining the phenomenon as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities… More specifically, manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as Jewish collectivity,” the definition reads.

Though that definition was never legally binding, various international bodies, several law enforcement agencies and European courts have used it in their investigations. It is essentially meant to “help police forces who are monitoring anti-Semitism on the ground to have a better understanding of what anti-Semitism is,” Kenneth Stern, the AJC’s specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism, told JNS.org.

Under the First Amendment, hate speech in the U.S. must be likely to cause violence or harm before it can be deemed criminal. But in the European Union, speech can be prohibited even if it is only abusive, insulting or likely to disturb public order, noted Talia Naamat, legal researcher at the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry in Jerusalem.

There are many laws on Holocaust denial in Europe, including in Germany, Belgium, and Austria, where British Holocaust denier David Irving was convicted and imprisoned in 2006. In Spain, Holocaust denial was a criminal violation until 2007, when a court ruled in the case of neo-Nazi activist Pedro Valera that Holocaust denial could not be punished with imprisonment because the act falls within free speech. But in January, Spain’s justice minister proposed a new bill that would make Holocaust denial a criminal offense if it incites violence. The bill is expected to be approved later this year.

I believe this case best encapsulates the debate (in Europe) between freedom of expression versus incitement to hatred, as well as the varying degrees of protection from hate speech,” Naamat told JNS.org. But frequently, such European laws appear as part of a broader “incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred or discrimination,” or as part of the general prohibition of genocide, she said.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch penal code includes a broad anti-discrimination provision, ” so, anti-Semitic content in essence will be prosecuted if it’s brought to the prosecutor as falling under the anti-discrimination legislation,” Eissens said.

Three cases were recently filed against Jeroen de Kreek, a Dutch Holocaust denier who posted his material on several websites. Having already lost one case, he will face the other two this spring. In this case, Kreek is likely to be convicted as “his material is blatantly anti-Semitic,” according to Eissens.

The UK has only general legislation regarding harassment and discrimination, The Public Order act of 1986, which states that “a person who uses threatening words or behavior, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” Other laws, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Malicious Communications Act, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, were passed in subsequent years.

Our perspective is that things which are illegal offline should be illegal online,” Dave Rich, spokesman for Community Security Trust, which conducted the February survey on social media anti-Semitism in the UK, according to the International Business Times. “Racial abuse laws were made from incidents in the street, not online.”

European laws on the issue, however, are not uniformly applied across the EU. Even the European Court of Human Rights does not offer an accepted definition for “hate speech,” instead offering only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the “hate speech” is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech. Prosecutors therefore exercise a great amount of discretion, as do policemen, who must classify the act as a hate crime or not, and judges, who must assess which action or speech is likely to disturb public order. “That assessment can be subjective,” Naamat said.

INACH’s Eissens emphasized that prosecuting anti-Semitism is “a thing we do but not the only thing we do.” The organization is also highly focused on counter-speech projects, education and prevention, though Eissens does believe that the law is necessary in some extreme cases.

It’s a bit like the police arrests 20 people this week and the same people are back on the streets doing it again one month later, or they’re joined by another 40; it doesn’t mean that the police has to stop working,” he said.

Stern believes that it is generally “more effective to have hateful speech marginalized than censored,” particularly by having high-ranking officials or politicians call it out. In 2005, Stern was part of a debate in the U.S. between Jewish groups on the issue of anti-Semitism online. One school of thought was in favor of removing anti-Semitic content, the other side believed such content “is a way to train kids in this new medium,” on how to distinguish hateful speech from benign speech, he said.

The bigger problem, Stern said, is when anti-Semitism, online or otherwise, is expressed as normal, polite dinner conversation. “I’ll be less worried if it’s half a dozen neo-Nazis with tattoos sitting in a bar someplace,” he said.

Leave a Reply

Please note: comments may be published in the Algemeiner print edition. Comments written in all caps will be deleted.


Current day month ye@r *

More...

  • Features Unpacking the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Its Ripple Effect on Israel’s Region

    Unpacking the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Its Ripple Effect on Israel’s Region

    JNS.org – Aside from Israel itself, those with a vested interest in the Jewish state are accustomed to tracking developments related to Middle East players such as Iran, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. But much global attention has recently focused on the Caucasus region at the Europe-Asia border, specifically on the suddenly intensified violence between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the mountainous Nagorno-Karabakh area of western Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, while not taking place in Israel’s immediate neighborhood, does have what one scholar called […]

    Read more →
  • Blogs Features Earth Day 2016: Israel Shines in Water Technology, Recycling, Renewable Energy

    Earth Day 2016: Israel Shines in Water Technology, Recycling, Renewable Energy

    JNS.org – On Friday, April 22, 196 nations across the world mark Earth Day, the annual day dedicated to environmental protection that was enacted in 1970. Not to be forgotten on this day is Israel, which is known as the “start-up nation” for its disproportionate amount of technological innovation, including in the area of protecting the environment. For Earth Day 2016, JNS.org presents a sampling of the Jewish state’s internal achievements and global contributions in the environmental realm. Water conservation Israeli […]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture World New Documentary Explores Holocaust Humor, Role That Laughter Played in Death Camps

    New Documentary Explores Holocaust Humor, Role That Laughter Played in Death Camps

    Holocaust humor and the role that laughter played in the lives of Jews during World War II are the focus of a documentary that made its world premiere on Monday at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. In The Last Laugh, first- and second-generation survivors, as well as famous Jewish and non-Jewish comedians, discuss their thoughts on when joking about the death camps is appropriate or taboo. “Nazi humor, that’s OK. Holocaust humor, no,” Jewish comedic giant, actor and filmmaker Mel Brooks says in the film. “Anything I […]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Blogs Tragedy Culminates in ‘Celebration,’ Says Israeli Author Who Lost Son to Terror

    Tragedy Culminates in ‘Celebration,’ Says Israeli Author Who Lost Son to Terror

    JNS.org – Sherri Mandell’s life was devastated on May 8, 2001, when her 13-year-old son Koby was murdered by terrorists on the outskirts of the Israeli Jewish community of Tekoa. Yet Mandell not only shares the story of her loss, but also celebrates the lessons she has learned from tragedy. Indeed, “celebrate” is this Israeli-American author’s word choice. Her second book, The Road to Resilience: From Chaos to Celebration (Toby Press), came out earlier this year. The lesson: in every celebration, there is […]

    Read more →
  • Features Opinion For Alan Gross, Cuban Prison Didn’t Harden His Heart or Weaken His Ambition

    For Alan Gross, Cuban Prison Didn’t Harden His Heart or Weaken His Ambition

    JNS.org – Alan Gross used to be nothing more to me than a tragic headline. When I started my position at this news service in July 2011, Gross had been imprisoned in Cuba since December 2009 for what that country called “crimes against the state.” Gross, a subcontractor for the United States Agency for International Development, went to Cuba to help the Jewish community there access the Internet. After his arrest, he received a trial he describes as a “B movie,” […]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Features New Movie Shows How Global Economic Instability Grew From Very Local Greed

    New Movie Shows How Global Economic Instability Grew From Very Local Greed

    JNS.org – When I saw the recent Academy Award-winning film “The Big Short,” I was struck by the sheer genius of the financiers who devised the schemes and packaged the loans for resale, but it left me with unanswered questions about how the properties these loans represented were moved. “The Big Short” was largely about paper transactions, big money, and wealthy investors, and it mildly touched on the way the actual end-users — the home buyers and brokers — played into this […]

    Read more →
  • Blogs Book Reviews Psychiatry and the Spirit

    Psychiatry and the Spirit

    Why do we think so negatively about psychiatrists that we still insult them by calling them shrinks? Some medics might be quacks, but we don’t generally refer to them as witches! Shrinks; The Untold Story of Psychiatry, by Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, is a sobering account of how psychiatry has swung from a marginal, unscientific mixture of weird theories into one of the most common and pervasive forms of treatment of what are commonly called “disorders of the mind.” Is it […]

    Read more →
  • Features Opinion At Forbes Summit in Israel, Entrepreneurship Is a ‘Common Language’

    At Forbes Summit in Israel, Entrepreneurship Is a ‘Common Language’

    JNS.org – Nine months ago, Seth Cohen, director of network initiatives for the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, and Randall Lane, editor of Forbes Magazine, were schmoozing about the “vibrancy of Tel Aviv and soul of Jerusalem,” as Lane put it. They dreamed about how they could bring young and innovative millennials to the so-called “start-up nation.” From April 3-7, Forbes turned that dream into a reality. Israel played host to the first-ever Forbes Under 30 EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) […]

    Read more →