Nov. 1, 2020
This working paper served as a basis for an interview organized by Olivia Dufour in French in Actu-juridiques-Lextenso on 11st of January 2021.
Sept. 16, 2020
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Se tenir bien dans l'espace numérique, in Penser le droit de la pensée. Mélanges en l'honneur de Michel Vivant, Lexis Nexis and Dalloz, 2020, pp. 155-168
Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)
Summary of the article:
The digital space is one of the scarce spaces not framed by a specific branch of Law, Freedom also offering opportunity to its actors to not "behave well", that is to express and diffuse broadly and immediately hateful thoughts through Hate speechs, which remained before in private or limited circles. The intimacy of Law and of the legal notion of Person is broken: Digital permits to individuals or organizations to act as demultiplied and anonymous characters, digital depersonalized actors who carry behaviors that are hurtful to other's dignity.
Against that, Compliance Law offers an appropriate solution: internalizing in digital crucial operators the mission to disciplinary and substantially hold the digital space. The digital space has been structured by powerful firms able to maintain order. Because Law must not reduce digital space to be only a neutral market of digital prestations, these crucial operators, like social networks or search engines, must be forced to substantially control behaviors. It could be about an obligation of internet users to act with their face uncover, "real identity" policy controlled by firms, and to respect others' rights, privacy rights, dignity, intellectual property rights. In their Regulatory function, digital crucial firms must be supervised by public authorities.
Thus, Compliance law substantially defined is the protector of the person as "subject of law" in the digital space, by the respect that others must have, this space passing from the status of free space to the one of civilized space, in which everyone is obliged to behave well.
Read to go further:
Aug. 14, 2020
Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Is Regulating Hate and Infox a legal obligation imposed to the Digital Enterprises or the expression of their free will to contribute to Democracy?, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 14th of August 2020
Read, by freely subscribing, other news in the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Summary of the news
Internet permits to access to expanded knowledge but also make easier the broadcasting of fake news and hate speeches. Unfortunately, public powers cannot know who broadcast these fake news and hate speeches and are so not able to fight efficiently against this. A solution would be to expect from digital firms that they find a way to contain these fake news and hate speeches that they structurally contribute to diffuse.
Digital firms already do that and especially Facebook which plans to sensibilize its American users to 2020 presidential elections. However, digital firms explain that if they fight against fake news and hate speeches, it is only because of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). But, even if it is a calculus to get a better reputation and avoid boycott actions, this remains a willingness of the firm which is therefore neither forced to succeed, nor even to act.
The solution proposed by Compliance Law is to make of this effort a legal obligation by internalizing in crucial operators (digital firms) the "monumental goal" to fight against fake news and hate speeches so that digital companies are required to act and that they are supervised by public authorities in this task. The forthcoming law about digital services will impose to digital firms Ex Ante obligations while the law of 22 of December 2018 related to the fight against information manipulation already forces platforms operators a legal obligation to "cooperate" in the fight against fake news.
To go further, read :
June 18, 2020
Thesaurus : 01. Conseil constitutionnel
Sept. 27, 2019
Thesaurus : Soft Law
Full reference: Information Note From the European Commission to the Permanent Representatives Committee About the Progress on Combatting Hate Speech Online Through the EU Code of Conduct, Council of the European Union, 27th of September 2019, 7p.
Updated: Sept. 5, 2019 (Initial publication: April 30, 2019)
Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance dans la Gouvernance d'Internet (The contribution of Compliance Law to the Internet Governance), Report asked by the French Government, published the 15th July 2019, 139 pages ; report fully translated in English later.
Report Summary. Governing the Internet? Compliance Law can help.
Compliance Law is for the Policy Maker to aim for global goals that they requires to be achieved by companies in a position to do so. In the digital space built on the sole principle of Liberty, the Politics must insert a second principle: the Person. The respect of this One, in balance with the Freedom, can be required by the Policy Maker via Compliance Law, which internalises this specific pretention in the digital companies. Liberalism and Humanism become the two pillars of Internet Governance.
The humanism of European Compliance Law then enriches US Compliance law. The crucial digital operators thus forced, like Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc., must then exercise powers only to better achieve these goals to protect persons (against hatred, inadequate exploitation of data, terrorism, violation of intellectual property, etc.). They must guarantee the rights of individuals, including intellectual property rights. To do this, they must be recognized as "second level regulators", supervised by Public Authorities.
This governance of the Internet by Compliance Law is ongoing. By the European Banking Union. By green finance. By the GDPR. We must force the line and give unity and simplicity that are still lacking, by infusing a political dimension to Compliance: the Person. The European Court of Justice has always done it. The European Commission through its DG Connect is ready.
Plan of the Report (4 chapters): an ascertainement of the digitization of the world (1), the challenge of civilization that this constitutes (2), the relations of Compliance mechanisms as it should be conceived between Europe and the United States, not to mention that the world is not limited to them, with the concrete solutions that result from this (3) and concrete practical solutions to better organize an effective digital governance, inspired by what is particularly in the banking sector, and continuing what has already been done in Europe in the digital field, which has already made it exemplary and what it must continue, France can be force of proposal by the example (4).
Read below the 54 propositions that conclude the Report.
June 10, 2019
Le 5 juin 2019, Youtube a informé via son "blog officiel" (Official YouTube Blog) le renforcement de sa politique pour atteindre la lutte contre les contenus de haine, en raison de leur responsabilité sociale : we need "to live up to our responsability and protect the YouTube community from harmfum content".
Le slug du billet de blog "officiel" est plus clair encore : our-ongoing-work-to-tackle-hate.html.
On ne peut qu'être favorable à cette politique dans son principe, et ce d'autant plus qu'en ce qui concerne l'Europe ce sont les Autorités publiques, la jurisprudence et bientôt la Loi en ce qui concerne la France, qui exigent des opérateurs numériques cruciaux l'adoption d'une telle politique
Le "billet officiel" prend deux cas et deux exemples : le premier porte sur la déinformation et l'affirmation que la terre est plate, le second porte sur l'incitation à la haine et la promotion du nazisme. Sur celui-ci, le "billet officiel" le fait en ces termes :
"Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.
We recognize some of this content has value to researchers and NGOs looking to understand hate in order to combat it, and we are exploring options to make it available to them in the future. And as always, context matters, so some videos could remain up because they discuss topics like pending legislation, aim to condemn or expose hate, or provide analysis of current events. We will begin enforcing this updated policy today; however, it will take time for our systems to fully ramp up and we’ll be gradually expanding coverage over the next several months.
Le 6 juin, un journaliste s'en inquiète en affirmant qu'avec une telle politique le film Le triomphe de la volonté, en ce qu'elle met en scène le nazisme et constitue un film de propagande de ce mouvement est donc condamné à disparaître de l'espace numérique.
Il titre son article : "YouTube Pulls ‘Triumph of the Will’ For Violating New Hate Speech Policy".
Il proteste en disant que dans toutes les universités le film a été montré pour souligner à quel point le cinéma peut être un médium en politique : "Riefensahl's harrowing depiction of the Nuremberg Rallies remains an essential loof at the ideological power of the moving image, and how it can be co-opted on a mass scale" ; "the movie also illuminates how a nation can filter its own realities through recorded media".
Il soutient qu'à ce compte les films d'Eistenstein, Potemkin, devrait être retiré, ce qu'il n'est pas, et soutient que cela devrait aussi le cas pour Naissance d'une Nation de Griffith, qui ne l'est pas davantage.
Découvrant dans une chaine que Youtube diffuse au titre des "archives historiques", une prise de position est prise sur le caractère inadmissible du "Triomphe de volonté", il estime que le retrait de ce film-là est donc le reflet d'une prise de position qui n'est pas neutre.
Il conclut son article de la façon suivante : "It raises major issues surrounding the platform's capacity as a historical archive, and how much viewers can be trusted to do some of the legwork on their own. These are the challenges that no algorithmes can solve.".
Pourtant effectivement, le film est désormais indisponible sur Youtube, l'internaute ne trouvant que le message suivant (dans la langue que son adresse IP suppose être la suivante : "Cette vidéo a été supprimée, car elle ne respectait pas le règlement de YouTube concernant les contenus incitant à la haine. Découvrez comment lutter contre l'incitation à la haine dans votre pays.". Il est possible en cliquant sur "En savoir plus".
En cliquant, l'on arrive à un document de "Règles concernant l'incitation à la haine". Il s'adresse aux personnes qui mettent des contenus, les prévient de ce qui sera supprimé par Youtube et pourquoi, donne des exemple. Signale que cela résulte des mesures supplémentaires adoptées par YouTube le 5 juin. Renvoie par click à ce document. L'internaute arrive au document précité en anglais du "blog officiel".
Qu'en penser en Droit ?
Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la Gouvernance d'Internet, rapport remis au Gouvernement, 2019.