Truth, law and hate in the virtual marketplace of ideas: perspectives on the regulation of Internet content

Abstract

Rising international concern about the problem of hate speech on the Internet has led to calls for greater regulation. The Internet is arguably a true marketplace of ideas but one where ‘dangerous words’ may have a disproportionate impact. The paper suggests that looking to historical parallels can offer a more fruitful and workable solution moving beyond the current temptation of knee-jerk legislative responses and regulation; and one more universally acceptable. Locke's philosophical argument for free speech, for instance, delivered against a background of seventeenth-century religious intolerance and perceived sedition, provides interesting analogies to the current problem in relation to terrorism. We question whether current legal approaches to hate speech are practical and appropriate, and the extent to which the transposition of ‘real life’ regulation can be imposed onto ‘virtual life’ regulation. Is the Internet in fact a qualitatively different form of communication which renders Lockean principles, and their subsequent interpretations, powerless in the face of hate speech? The repressive extension of the law to criminalise the expression of ideas deemed offensive raises key issues relating to the problem of veracity and authenticity of Internet content. Not least that the legal enforcement of any such regulation may require an unacceptable level of State intrusion into personal communication and privacy. Drawing on the historical perspective reminds us that censorship is the enemy of democratic values and that while calls for censorship of hate speech on the Internet may appear superficially attractive, there are dangerous implications and undercurrents for our hard won liberties.