Heather De Santis
International Comparative Research Group (ICP)
Strategic Research and Analysis(SRA)
Strategic Planning and Policy Coordination
Department of Canadian Heritage Multiculturalism
Progam and the Information Policy and Planning
Branch, Industry Canada, Ottawa
Jan. 1997
Republished with permission

Executive Summary

This study provides an international comparative overview of existing and emerging government responses to hate on the Internet, as well as the innovative approaches of quasi- and non-governmental organizations. The case studies in this report include: Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Information on the activities of the Council of Europe, the European Union, the OECD, UNESCO and the United Nations has also been included. This international review reveals a number of findings:

In discourse surrounding the regulation of the Internet, pornography appears to be the main concern of regulators, with particular emphasis on its availability to minors. However, innovative measures implemented with the intent to combat illegal content usually include provisions for the regulation of hate.

Germany is the only country to have introduced entirely new telecommunications legislation to deal with the Internet, but it has yet to be tested before the courts. Under this legislation, third-parties are not generally considered liable for content unless they are aware of the content and/or have not provided customers with appropriate blocking mechanisms. Ongoing evaluation of the success or non-success of this initiative would be highly informative to the Government of Canada.

Some countries have resolved to expand existing legislation (criminal and penal laws). In these instances, minor amendments have been made to increase the scope of existing laws to cover electronically disseminated or stored information (UK and Germany).

Failed attempts at passing Internet-specific legislation (France, New Zealand, US) demonstrate the problematic nature of attempting to restrict access to content. Confusion and vagueness about liability and restricted access and freedom of speech (for adults) seem to be the major impediments to the creation of workable and well-defined legislation.

Content classification bodies, such as national Offices of Film and Literature Classification (Australia and New Zealand), which apply existing conventional media censorship laws to the Internet, are also held responsible for monitoring content, and determining what should/should not be restricted to the public via the Internet.
Most countries support the discussion of possible multilateral initiatives which attempt to address the transnational aspect of Internet content availability. However, the reconciliation of freedom of expression and the protection of human dignity appears to be a contentious issue in international fora. Different cultural attitudes, values and beliefs may also impede an international agreement on the definition of “controversial content.”

The rapid expansion of online services has presented new challenges for regulators. The speed at which the Internet continues to develop (on an international level) has made the identification of both offenders and the “virtual jurisdiction” in which they operate difficult for regulators.

Existing legislation (as well as how it is enforced) in many countries needs to be better defined in terms of Internet applicability; however, to create completely new legislation at this stage appears to be premature.

Industry

The impetus behind self-regulation appears to be stemming from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as well as software and hardware producers, who are motivated in their efforts to establish codes of conduct. Other measures include “hate-free servers,” educational websites to promote user responsibility, and the use of rating, blocking and filtering software.

A number of countries (Netherlands, German, UK) have established hotlines for the purpose of reporting potentially illegal content. This initiative, which relies on collaboration among users, ISPs and the police, appears to be an effective preventative tool with potential application to the Canadian situation.

The control over the allocation of domain names may help monitor new sites which contain offensive or illegal content and may help authorities more readily determine the country location of the offending site. In New Zealand, for example, the main association of ISPs which is responsible for the allocation of domain names (i.e. sites with the name “.nz”), will refuse to register a name if it considers that it may be offensive.

A number of industry initiatives which work to empower the user through the rating or filtering of offensive content have been endorsed by numerous governments to be used in conjunction with (or in the absence of ) other non- and legislative measures (Australia, Netherlands, UK, US). These endorsements promote responsible user activity, including parental supervision, which is held to be important in the use of all media.

Partnerships

There appears to be an increasing level of cooperation in each country reviewed between Internet Service Providers and national governments resulting in innovative measures for preventative and self-regulatory programs. In most countries, governments and industry are working in tandem. This cooperation between government and Internet service providers (ISPs) which avoids cumbersome, ill-defined legislation in favour of self-regulation, user-educational programs (increasing awareness of blocking and filtering software) and preventative measures (such as reporting hotlines), offers potential for the Canadian situation. This type of multifaceted approach is exemplified by the policy frameworks of Australia and the European Union.

Due to the increased internationalization of the Internet, Canada cannot simply focus on domestic regulatory issues. National efforts must be complemented by Canada’s full participation in the dialogue on regulation occurring in the multilateral organizations reviewed in this report.

National and international initiatives reviewed in this study offer potential application to the Canadian situation; however, due to the rapidly changing and developing area of Internet communication, it is too soon to offer a detailed assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.

Further research would be warranted in the area of non-legislative regulation which encourages user-awareness and responsible ISP conduct. Ongoing assessments of the success of these initiatives may provide useful information on their applicability to the Canadian situation and their potential for use within an international context which is currently struggling to both define controversial content and reconcile freedom of expression with other human rights.

To order this report, contact:
Tel: (819) 997-2697
Fax: (819) 997-6765
Email: mireille_dalpe@pch.gc.ca