Authors of emails and Internet postings that contain racist or xenophobic material could face criminal charges under a proposed European treaty that is dividing the Internet and law enforcement communities.
The proposal, drafted by the Council of Europe (an influential legal forum that works to harmonise laws across Europe) would essentially outlaw the publishing of "hate speech" on the Internet. Welcomed by law enforcement agencies, it has been slammed by Internet firms as impossible to enforce.
Known as the Convention on Cybercrime, the proposal has received input from 43 European countries plus the United States, Japan, Canada and South Africa.
It would need individual ratification in each country before becoming law. It has so far been signed, but not yet ratified, by 32 nations.
The proposal seeks to create a comprehensive legal framework for Europe's crimefighters in their efforts to identify and prosecute cross-border hate crimes on the Internet, something politicians are eager to address in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
"We must harmonise the laws first so that countries can co-operate in criminal investigations regarding the Internet," Peter Csonka, principal administrator at the Council of Europe, told Reuters on Friday.
He added that many member states have already criminalised certain activities regarded as racist or xenophobic - such as threatening a group on the grounds of race, colour or religion - and the treaty would seek to extend these measures to the Internet.
FREE SPEECH OR RACIAL HATRED?
The proposal has already provoked protest from civil liberties groups who maintain it could criminalise free speech, and from some Internet firms concerned by liability issues.
Csonka said that telecoms firms and Internet service providers (ISPs) have contacted the council asking for clarification on whether they would be held liable for hate speech posted or emailed by their customers.
ISPs typically operate a policy of "notification and takedown" in which they will remove sites containing objectionable material if it's first brought to their attention. Self-policing in this manner, they say, is the best way to tackle hate speech online.
"It's almost impossible, and this is the consensus in the ISP community, to monitor every single piece of Web space in the Internet community," said Paul Barker, director of corporate affairs at Freeserve, the British ISP owned by France's Wanadoo.
Csonka said the liability concerns raised by ISPs and Web site operators have not yet been addressed.
Civil liberty groups have also objected to the proposal, fearing it could bring the more rigorous anti-hate speech laws that exist in continental Europe to the more liberal UK and United States.
For example, it is unlawful to post or sell Nazi regalia or propaganda on the Internet in France and Germany, but there are few legal curbs in the U.S. and Britain.
"This proposal could potentially outlaw free speech," said Malcolm Hutty, general director for Campaign Against Censorship on the Internet in Britain, or CACIB. "That would be a great infringement of civil rights."