The promotion of racism in the public domain undermines, and can ultimately destroy, the sense of safety and security of targeted people or groups and also adversely affect social harmony. It is often the precursor to racially motivated violence even if there is no express incitement to violence. Racial hatred is an inherently violent emotion, whether it actually generates violence in any particular instance or not.
The internet has made it so much easier to widely circulate racist views, almost unchecked by law. But cyber racism need not be an untameable beast, if governments are prepared to start attacking the problem in a concerted and co-ordinated way within an agreed legal framework.
Cyber racism can take many forms such as images, blogs, video clips on YouTube and comments in social media such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.
The application of laws against incitement to racial hatred to cyber racism poses formidable challenges. Racist content on a website might be freely accessible by an internet user located in Australia, but if the publisher of the material and the internet service provider (ISP) are located, say, in the US and have no assets in Australia they are effectively beyond the reach of Australia's courts. And the legality or otherwise of the published content may vary significantly between different jurisdictions.
Of course, the law is not the only mechanism available to counteract cyber racism. In Australia, the introduction of a National Education Curriculum provides a unique opportunity to provide students with ongoing education in critical thinking, which should be integrated in the curriculum beginning in primary school and reinforced in courses in history, literature and the natural and social sciences in secondary school.
Adopting a sceptical and analytical approach to all information, especially from online sources, should be so deeply instilled in students that it becomes second nature. Questioning assumptions and seeking and weighing alternative views should become a habit. This would provide some much-needed balance to the laissez faire online culture that prevails.
Self-regulation is another option. This involves trying to persuade publishers, website hosts and platform providers such as YouTube and Facebook to remove offending content voluntarily. They are not always aware that particular online material constitutes cyber racism and, once they are made aware, many are anxious not to be identified publicly as purveyors of racism.
But this is not always the case. Most publishers of cyber racism do so knowingly and assert that their right of free speech over-rides the rights and freedoms of the individuals or groups they vilify or harass. Some of them consider it a badge of honour to be tagged as a racist. Their internet service providers pretend to be mere conduits and disclaim all responsibility for the way their services are used.
ISPs lack the knowledge and insight into racism to enable them to make an informed decision about whether a particular publication has crossed the line into racial vilification or harassment. More to the point, websites often generate advertising revenue for their owners, and the owners pay the ISPs. In social media platforms, the more viewers and discussion, the more advertising revenue can be created, and this advertising revenue usually goes directly to the platform provider. ISPs and platform providers have a clear commercial interest against any form of regulation, and in being as permissive as possible. The final decision about whether or not to allow an allegedly racist publication to remain on the net should not rest with them.
Ultimately, even though the law is not the whole answer to cyber racism, it must be a critical part of the answer. Without the ultimate sanction of the law, the scourge of cyber racism will continue to grow unchecked. Like other contemporary scourges, such as terrorism and environmental degradation, cyber racism operates across national boundaries and governments acting individually cannot deal with it effectively.
The technical means exist to curtail cyber racism if not eliminate it altogether and to force website owners and ISPs to act with social responsibility if they will not do so voluntarily. Only if governments co-operate will it be possible to harness these technical means to deal effectively with cyber racism. As a starting point, countries could agree in a formal treaty to recognise and give effect to judgments delivered by one another's courts concerning specific racist publications.
For example, the government of country A could undertake to order an ISP operating from its territory to ensure that certain content is not accessible to users of the internet located in country B if a court or tribunal in country B has found that the publication of the content in country B is in breach of its laws.
No doubt more ingenious minds will be able to devise other legal mechanisms to address the problem. What is important at this stage, years after the advent of the internet, is that international law starts to catch up. All that is required is the political will and intelligent leadership.
Peter Wertheim is executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. He recently attended an Experts Forum on Combating Anti-Semitism in Ottawa and its Working Group on Hate on the Internet.
Sydney Morning Herald
