Tackling online hate speech from a European perspective: Potentials and challenges of inter-legality

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1392

Keywords:

online hate speech, inter-legality, internet governance, legal and non-legal actors, gobernanza de Internet, discurso de odio online, interlegalidad, actores jurídicos y no jurídicos

Abstract

The contribution delves into some main implications of the current soft and hard legal framework related to the Internet governance for tackling online hate speech, from the perspective of legal and social actors based in the European Union. Given the dynamic constellation characterised by centripetal trends towards UN-fostered international governance, Council of Europe and EU soft and hard legal instruments, co-existing with centrifugal forces of national legislations, the article explores how inter-legality may contribute tackling online hate speech in today’s fast changing and complex legal scenario. Hence, due to the lack of a universally recognised definition of hate speech and a global regulation of online communication, inter-legality may be operationalised in still unexplored places – that is, not only by judges but by lawmakers, independent authorities on communication, and even platforms.

La contribución profundiza en algunas de las principales implicaciones del actual marco jurídico vinculante y no vinculante relacionado con la gobernanza de Internet para hacer frente a la incitación al odio en línea, desde la perspectiva de los actores jurídicos y sociales con sede en la Unión Europea (UE). Dada la constelación dinámica caracterizada por las tendencias centrípetas hacia la gobernanza internacional promovida por la ONU, los instrumentos jurídicos blandos y duros del Consejo de Europa y de la UE, que coexisten con las fuerzas centrífugas de las legislaciones nacionales, el artículo explora las áreas en las que la interlegalidad puede ser fructífera para contribuir a hacer frente a la incitación al odio en línea en el cambiante y complejo escenario jurídico actual. Por lo tanto, debido a la falta de una definición universalmente reconocida de la incitación al odio y de una regulación global de la comunicación en línea, la interlegalidad puede ser operativa en lugares aún inexplorados, es decir, no sólo por los jueces, sino también por los legisladores, las autoridades independientes de comunicación e incluso las plataformas.

Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1392

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

        Metrics

Views 320
Downloads:
13(4)_Bello_OSLS 210
XML_13(4)_Bello_OSLS 9


Author Biography

Barbara Giovanna Bello, Universitá degli Studi della Tuscia

Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy, barbaragbello@gmail.com

References

Abba, A., and Alù, A., eds., 2020. Il valore della carta dei diritti di internet. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

Adler, J., 2011. The Public’s Burden in Digital Age: Pressures on Intermediaries and the Privatization of Internet Censorship. Journal of Law and Policy, 20(1), 231–266.

Arango, A., Pérez, J., and Poblete, B., 2019. Hate Speech Detection is Not as Easy as You May Think: A Closer Look at Model Validation. SIGIR’19: Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information, 45–54.

Balkin, J.M., 2018. Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review [online], 118(7). Available at: https://columbialawreview.org/content/free-speech-is-a-triangle/

Bassini, M., 2019. Fundamental Rights and Private Enforcement in the Digital Age. European Law Journal, 25(2), 182–197.

Bassini, M., and Pollicino, O., eds., 2015. Verso un Internet Bill of Rights. Rome: Aracne.

Bello, B.G., 2021. I discorsi d’odio in rete. In: T. Casadei and S. Pietropaoli, eds., Diritto e tecnologie informatiche: Questioni di informatica giuridica. Prospettive, istituzionali e sfide sociali. Padua: Cedam, 247–262.

Bello, B.G., and Scudieri, L., 2022. Discorsi d’odio online. Spunti per un dibattito interdisciplinare. In: B.G. Bello and L. Scudieri, eds., L’odio online: forme, prevenzione e contrasto. Turin: Giappichelli, 1–18.

Bentham, J., 1821. On the Liberty of the Press and Public Discussion. London: William Hone.

Berman, P.S., 2009. The New Legal Pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 225–242.

Berman, P.S., 2014. Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law Beyond Borders. Cambridge University Press.

Blasi, V.A., 2020. Holmes’s Understanding of His Clear-and-Present-Danger Test: Why Exactly Did He Require Imminence? Seton Hall Law Review, 51(1), 175–204.

Castells, M., 2010. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Hoboken: Wiley.

Chiba, M., 1989. Legal Pluralism: Toward a General Theory Through Japanese Legal Culture. Tokyo: Tokai University Press.

Chiti, E., di Martino, A., and Palombella, G., eds., 2021a. L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Chiti, E., di Martino, A, and Palombella, G., 2021b. Nel mondo delle legalità al plurale e dell’interconnessione. In: E. Chiti, A. di Martino and G. Palombella, eds., L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 9–26.

Commaille, J., and Jobert, B., 1998. Introduction. La régulation politique: l’émergence d’un nouveau régime de connaisance. In: J. Commaille and B. Jobert, eds., Les métamorphoses de la régulation politique. Paris: LGDJ.

Cotterrell, R., 2014. A Concept of Law for Global Legal Pluralism?. In: L. Heckendorn Urscheler and S.P. Donlan, eds., Concepts of Law: Comparative, Jurisprudential and Social Science Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate, 193–208.

Council Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law, 28 November 2008 (2008/913/JHA).

Council of Europe Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems, 1 March 2006. European Treaty Series, no. 189.

Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. 23 November 2001. European Treaty Series, No. 185.

Council of Europe Declaration on ICANN, Human Rights and the Rule of Law, 3 June 2015. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2015 at the 1229th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on combating hate speech. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 May 2022 at the 132nd Session of the Committee of Ministers).

Council of Europe Recommendation on the Roles and Responsibilities of Internet Intermediaries (CM/Rec(2018)2). (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 March 2018 at the 1309th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

Council of the EU, 2021. What is illegal offline should be illegal online: Council agrees position on the Digital Services Act [online]. Press release, 25 November. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/11/25/what-is-illegal-offline-should-be-illegal-online-council-agrees-on-position-on-the-digital-services-act

Curwen, P., 2022. Must I tweet? If you musk. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance [online], 24(4), 398–399. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-06-2022-188

Cutler, F., 1999. Jeremy Bentham and the Public Opinion Tribunal. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(3), 321–346.

Delmas-Marty, M., 1986. Le flou du droit: Du code pénal aux droits de l’homme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Delmas-Marty, M., 2007. Les forces imaginantes du droit (III): La refondation des pouvoirs. Paris: Seuil.

di Martino, A., 2021. Dalla regola per il caso al caso della regola. In: E. Chiti, A. di Martino and G. Palombella, eds.. L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 65–90.

Dreyer, E., 2020. La censure de la loi Avia par le Conseil constitutionnel. Légipresse, 384, p. 412.

Eifert, M., and Gostomzyk, T., eds., 2018. Netzwerkrecht: Die Zukunft des NetzDG und seine Folgen für die Netzwerkkommunikation. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Eifert, M., et al., 2020a. Evaluation des NetzDG: Im Auftrag des BMJV [online]. Available at: https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/News/PM/090920_Juristisches_Gutachten_Netz.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Eifert, M., et al., 2020b. Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz in der Bewährung. Juristische Evaluation und Optimierungspotenzial. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

European Commission, 2018. 2018 Code of Practice on Disinformation [online]. September. Brussels. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2018-code-practice-disinformation

European Commission, 2021. Communication on Guidance on Strengthening the Code of Practice on Disinformation (COM(2021) 262 final) [online]. 26 May. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2021:262:FIN

European Commission, 2022a. 2022 Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation [online]. 16 June. Brussels. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2022-strengthened-code-practice-disinformation

European Commission, 2022b. Digital Services Act: Commission Welcomes Political Agreement on Rules Ensuring a Safe and Accountable Online Environment. Press Release [EU-DSA] (online). 23 April. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_2545

European Commission, 2023. The Digital Services Act package [online]. 23 January. Brussels. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package

European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31/EC on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), 8 June 2000.

European Parliament and Council Directive 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Provision of Audiovisual Media Services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in View of Changing Market Realities, 14 November 2018 (PE/33/2018/REV/1). Official Journal, L 303, 28.11.2018, 69–92.

European Parliament and Council Regulation 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act, EU DSA), 19 October 2022.

Fiano, N., 2021. Il linguaggio dell’odio in Germania: tra wehrhafte Demokratie e Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz. In: M. d’Amico and C. Siccardi, eds., La Costituzione non odia. Conoscere, prevenire e contrastare l’hate speech on line. Turin: Giappichelli, 155–164.

Fiorinelli, G., 2021. Ordinamenti interconnessi. Il contributo dell’interlegalità alla regolazione della rete. In: E. Chiti, A. di Martino and G. Palombella, eds., L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 405–440.

Fischer-Lescano, A., and Teubner, G., 2004. Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law [online], 25(4), 999–1045. Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol25/iss4/12?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Fmjil%2Fvol25%2Fiss4%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Floridi, L., ed., 2015. The Onlife Manifesto. Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era [online]. Cham: SpringerOpen. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6

Floridi, L., 2018. Soft Ethics and the Governance of the Digital. Philosophy & Technology [online], 31, 1–8. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-018-0303-9

Floridi, L., and Taddeo, M., 2016. What is Data Ethics? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A [online], 374, 1–5. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360

Frosio, G., 2022. Platform Responsibility in the Digital Services Act: Constitutionalising, Regulating and Governing Private Ordering. Queen’s University Belfast Law Research Paper, 1–21. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4236510

Furnivall, S., 1939. Netherlands India: A Study of Plural Economy. Cambridge: University Press; New York: Macmillan Company.

Gillespie, T., 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. London: Yale University Press.

Gordon, J., 1997. John Stuart Mill and the “Marketplace of Ideas.” Social Theory and Practice, 23(2), 235–249.

Grossi, P., 2002. Globalizzazione, diritto, scienza giuridica. Il Foro Italiano, 125(5), 151–164.

Guterres, A., 2020. Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation [online]. United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 2017. Revised ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law [online]. 18 April. Available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-redline-18apr17-en.pdf

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), no date. The IANA stewardship transition: What you need to know [online]. Available at: https://www.icann.org/iana-transition-fact-sheet

Isin, E., and Ruppert, E., 2020. Being Digital Citizens. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Itzcovich, G., 2012. Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal, 18(3), 358–384.

Johnson, D.R., and Post, D., 1996. Law and Borders. Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1367–1402.

Just, N., 2022. The Taming of Internet Platforms – A Look at the European Digital Services Act. Competition Policy International (CPI), 15 June.

Kahn, R., 2013. Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein and Robert Post. Hofstra Law Review, 41(3), 545–585.

Kahn, R., et al., 1997. The Evolution of the Internet as a Global Information System. International Information & Library Review, 29(2), 129–151.

Kettemann, M.C., 2020. The Normative Order of the Internet: A Theory of Rule and Regulation Online. Oxford University Press.

Koltay, A., 2022. The Protection of Freedom of Expression from Social Media Platforms. Mercer Law Review [online], 73(2), 523–588. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol73/iss2/6?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu%2Fjour_mlr%2Fvol73%2Fiss2%2F6&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Kosseff, J., 2019. The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lee, S.P., 2010. Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas. In: D. Golash, ed., Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World. London/New York: Springer, 13–25.

Mancini, L., 2015. Introduzione all’antropologia giuridica. Turin: Giappichelli.

McCarthy, K., 2005. UN outlines future of US-less internet WGIG provides four models. The Register [online], 15 July. Available at: https://www.theregister.com/2005/07/15/un_wgig_report/

Mill, J.S., 1977. On Liberty. In: J.M. Robson et al., eds., Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. University of Toronto Press, 18. (Originally published in 1859).

Moore, S.F., 1973. Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 719–746.

Musk, E. [@elonmusk], 10 May 2022. Great meeting! We are very much on the same page. [Answer to the European Commissioner Thierry Breton, @ThierryBreton]. Twitter [online], 10 May. Available at: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1523798885205876736

Musk, E. [@elonmusk], 25 April 2022. [Tweet]. Twitter, 25 April.

Nath, H.K., 2009. The Information Society. SIBCOLTEJO – A Journal of the SCTU [online], vol. 4, 19–29. Available at: https://www.shsu.edu/eco_hkn/The%20Information%20Society.pdf

Newitz, A., 2022. The US Myth of Free Speech. New Scientist, 254(3388), 28.

Ost, F., 2013. Dalla piramide alla rete. Un nuovo paradigma per la scienza giuridica?. In: M. Vogliotti, ed., Saggi sulla globalizzazione giuridica e il pluralismo normativo. Estratti da “Il tramonto della modernità giuridica. Un percorso interdisciplinare”. Turin: Giappichelli, 31–37.

Ost, F., and van De Kerchove, M., 2000. De la pyramide au réseau ? Vers un nouveau mode de production du droit ? Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques [online], 44(1), 1–82. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-interdisciplinaire-d-etudes-juridiques-2000-1-page-1.htm

Ost, F., and van De Kerchove, M., 2002. De la pyramide au réseau? Pour un théorie dialectique du droit. Brussels: Fusl.

Palombella, G., 2018. Interlegalità. L’interconnessione tra ordini giuridici, il diritto, e il ruolo delle corti. Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche [online], 18(2), 315–342. Available at: http://www.dirittoequestionipubbliche.org/page/2018_n18-2/11-studi_Palombella.pdf

Palombella, G., 2019. Theory, Realities, and Promises of Inter-Legality. A Manifesto. In: J. Klabbers and G. Palombella, eds., The Challenge of Interlegality. Cambridge University Press, 363–390.

Palombella, G., and Scoditti, E., 2021. L’interlegalità e la ragion giuridica del diritto contemporaneo. In: E. Chiti, A. di Martino and G. Palombella, eds., L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 29–64.

Parolari, P., 2020. Diritto Policentrico e interlegalità nei paesi europei di immigrazione: Il caso degli shari’ah councils in Inghilterra. Turin: Giappichelli.

Parolari, P., 2021. L’interlegalità come metodo? La decisione giudiziale negli spazi ibridi. In: E. Chiti, A. di Martino and G. Palombella, eds., L’era dell’interlegalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 119–135.

Pastore, B., 2017. Sul disordine delle fonti del diritto (inter)nazionale. Diritto & Questioni pubbliche [online], 17(1), 13–30. Available at: http://www.dirittoequestionipubbliche.org/page/2017_n17-1/DQ17-2017-1_03-mono_1_02_Pastore.pdf

Peukert, A., 2022. Das Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz: Entwicklung, Auswirkungen, Zukunft [online]. Arbeitspapier, Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. Available at: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748932741-229.pdf

Pollicino, O., and Bassini, M., 2014. The Law of the Internet between Globalisation and Localisation. In: M. Maduro, K. Tuori and S. Sankari, eds., Transnational Law: Rethinking European Law and Legal Thinking. Cambridge University Press, 346–380.

Pollicino, O., and de Gregorio, G., 2019. A Constitutional-Driven Change of Heart: ISP Liability and Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Single Market. The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence, 18(1), 237–264.

Post, D.G., 2008. Governing Cyberspace: Law. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 883–913.

Post, R., 2009. Hate Speech. In: I. Hare and J. Weinstein, eds., Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press.

Radu, R., 2019. Negotiating Internet Governance. Oxford University Press.

Raustiala, K., 2016. Governing the Internet. American Journal of International Law, 110(3), 491–503.

Redeker, D., Gill, L., and Gasser, U., 2018. Towards Digital Constitutionalism? Mapping Attempts to Craft an Internet Bill of Rights. International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 302–319.

Redish, M.H., 1982. Advocacy of Unlawful Conduct and the First Amendment: In Defense of Clear and Present Danger. California Law Review, 70(5), 1159–1200.

Reidenberg, J.R., 1997. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology. Texas Law Review, 76, 553–593.

Reynders, D., 2021. 6th Evaluation of the Code of Conduct. Factsheet [online]. European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, 7 October. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_21_5106

Rodotà, S., 2010. Una Costituzione per Internet?. Politica del diritto, 41(3), 337–351.

Rosen, J., 2012. The Deciders: The Future of Privacy and Free Speech in the Age of Facebook and Google. Fordham Law Review, 80(4), 1525–1537.

Rosen, J., 2016. The Deciders: The Future of Free Speech in a Digital World [online]. 21 October. Available at: https://shorensteincenter.org/jeffrey-rosen-future-of-free-speech-in-a-digital-world/

RTR, no date. Die Beschwerdestelle [online]. Vienna: RTR. Available at: https://www.rtr.at/medien/was_wir_tun/Beschwerdestelle/Startseite_Beschwerdestelle.de.html

Santos, B. de S., 1987. Law: A Map of Misreading. Toward a Postmodern Conception of Law. Journal of Law and Society, 14(3), 279–302.

Santos, B. de S., 2005. Beyond Neoliberal Governance: The World Social Forum as Subaltern Cosmopolitan Politics and Legality. In: B.S. Santos and C.A. Rodríguez-Garavito, eds., Law and Globalization from Below. Cambridge UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 29–63.

Santos, B. de S., 2016. Epistemologies of the South and the future. From the European South, 1, 17–29.

Scamardella, F., 2021. La governance: genesi, diffusione e disavventure di un lemma fortunato. Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 1, 11–32.

Shany, Y., 2019. International Courts as Inter-Legality Hubs. In: J. Klabbers and G. Palombella, eds., The Challenge of Inter-Legality (ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, 319–338.

Shapiro, M., 1993. The Globalization of Law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 1(1), 37–64.

Siccardi, C., 2021. La Loi Avia. La legge francese contro l’odio on line (o quello che ne rimane). In: M. d’Amico and C. Siccardi, eds., La Costituzione non odia. Conoscere, prevenire e contrastare l’hate speech on line. Turin: G. Giappichelli, 167–183.

Steinfield, C., and Salvaggio, J.L., 1989. Toward a Definition of the Information Society. In: J.L. Salvaggio (ed.), The Information Society: Economic, Social, and Structural Issue. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–14.

Transparency Center, no date. Oversight Board [online]. Menlo Park: Meta. Available at: https://transparency.fb.com/it-it/oversight

UN News, 2004. Experts meet at UN to examine Internet regulation [online]. 25 March. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2004/03/98332

UN Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), no date. The IGF and UN Processes [online]. Geneva: IGF. Available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/the-igf-and-un-processes

UN Secretary-General, 2020. Report of the Road Map for Digital Cooperation: Implementation of the Recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, 29 May 2020 (A/74/821).

UN Sustainable Development, 2016. World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) [online]. UN. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=30022&nr=102&menu=3170

UNESCO, 2015. Countering Online Hate Speech. Geneva: UNESCO.

Waldron, J., 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webster, F., 2014. Theories of the Information Society. London: Routledge. (Originally published in 2000).

WGIG-Working Group on Internet Governance, 2005. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance [online]. Available at: http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf

WSIS-UN World Summit on the Information Society, 2003. Declaration of Principles and Action Plan, 12 December 2003 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).

WSIS-UN World Summit on the Information Society, 2005a. Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, 18 November 2005 (WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev 1)-E).

WSIS-UN World Summit on the Information Society, 2005b. Tunis Commitment, 18 November 2005. (WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/7-E).

Wu, F.T., 2013. Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity. Notre Dame Law Review, 87(1), 293–349.

Ziccardi, G., 2016. L’odio online: Violenza verbale e ossessioni in rete. Milan: Raffaello Cortina.

Ziccardi, G., 2019. Le espressioni d’odio online. In: G. Ziccardi and P. Perri, eds., Tecnologia e Diritto. Milan: Giuffrè Francis Lefevbre, 153–177.

Ziccardi, G., and Perri, P., 2022. L’odio online tra profilazione, big data e protezione dei dati personali. In: B.G. Bello and L. Scudieri, eds., L’odio online: forme, prevenzione e contrasto. Turin: Giappichelli, 91–106.

Published

28-07-2023

How to Cite

Bello, B. G. (2023) “Tackling online hate speech from a European perspective: Potentials and challenges of inter-legality”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 13(4), pp. 1376–1411. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1392.