The UN human rights committee, concerned about the amount of racist material allegedly available on the Internet had suggested that a seminar be organised, as part of its programme of action for the third decade to combat racism and racial discrimination, to assess the role of the Internet with regard to CERD. A seminar was thus held in November 1997 at the UN, under the auspices of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It sought to bring together experts on the subject matter, government officials, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and representatives from non-governmental organisations to explore ways to ensure "responsible use of the Internet". This seminar, which was the second held on CERD and the Internet, was characterised by its failure to reach consensus on a number of issues.
Guided by Article 4 of CERD, and the multiple concerns expressed about it by member states, the seminar failed to reach consensus on any conclusions or recommendations, save for promoting "ways of increasing access to the Internet for under-resourced areas," and that the Internet should be used to educate against "racist propaganda", prevent racist doctrines and practices, and to promote mutual understanding." Beyond these neutral goals, the seminar failed to agree on a proposal establishing an inter-governmental working group, nor about formulating a code of conduct for users and ISPs. Similarly, no consensus was reached requiring that all Internet communications indicate their source to ensure that users did not anonymously distribute racist propaganda. Nor could participants agree on the role of existing national criminal laws against hate speech.
Arguably, the lack of progress at the seminar was illustrative of the fact that the cultural, political and social divides between countries are still too wide to achieve consensus on the type of speech that can flow in and out of their borders through the Internet. Seminar participants were faced with the one major obstacle that stands in the way of attempts to regulate speech on such a global mass medium as the Internet: the impossibility of reaching consensus. This stumbling block emerges as a result of the differing standards and weight that different countries ascribe to values such as freedom of speech, equality and political debate. The European Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations, for example, have attempted in vain to regulate content because they cannot reach consensus on what to police or how; and this within clusters of countries with clearly similar interests. How much more complicated the task must be when attempted across cultural divides!
The Global Internet Liberty campaign, one of the few NGO's represented at the seminar, submitted a statement on behalf of its 35 member organisations around the globe that while the application of exiting law to the Internet is still in its infancy, the well-established free speech principles should be applied to networked speech with even greater force. The Internet gives its users easy access to public discourse. It also affords human rights activists and opponents of racism an inexpensive and effective method for responding to racist speech. Its benefits far outweigh its dangers and one can only hope that international bodies and experts responsible for developing guidelines and legislation will bear these important factors in mind.
Tracy Cohen
Media Project, CALS.
 |  |