>> GAYATRI KHANDHADAI:  Good afternoon, everyone.  I hope you brought your lurch with you.  It's against the rules to eat in the UN, but if you're clever about it, you can get away it.  You have to smuggle in your room and drink very carefully.  I hope the staff are not listening to me.  I'm the standing moderator for this workshop on selective persecution in the mob: Hate and religion online.  And my colleague could not come.  She did not get a passport and Visa matters sorted out in time.  So I'm here for her.  I'm a member staff and I live and work from south Africa. 

I want to start by truce introducing our panel and a little about the topic we are trying to address.  On that topic, I think we're all aware that hate speech online is spreading at an alarming rate, and I think it's become the topic of concern, a concern by ‑‑ for activists, for journalists, for secular voices.  It's a concern for policy makers as well, and often responses to this has taken place in a way that actually fails to address the problem but reduces the openness and freedom of speech that we actually want to have societies where we can eliminate and criticize hate speech. 

So this is a topic that has been dealt with to some extent before, very much in the human rights community.  It is also a topic that requires a different approach.  So the IGF is a very appropriate venue for it.  And just to tell you about our speakers, we have ‑‑ we'll start off with some research that's being done by ‑‑ we have yet a researcher that has done this for my organization, based in Malaysia, and she'll talk about this particular problem and the concept of let the mop do the job.  And she'll explain that when she looks at the research. 

We then have after ‑‑ just jumping here, on my left, David cane, who does not need much introduction.  On freedom of (?) Talking specifically about what can be done and how we can respond to this. 

And Grace will be joining us soon.  And Grace will talk about hate speech online and elections and how that's the impacted on the mobilization and speech in Kenya. 

And then on the far side we have Carlos from Brazil.  He's the director of the institute for technology and society, and he'll give us a case from Brazil focusing on LGBT issues.  After Carlos and Grace, we'll move on to looking more at what's the thinking that's the taking place in how this matter can be responded to?  And we have Schultz is replacing Orska who was originally in the workshop program.  He's the director of the Institute in Hamburg.  And you'll talk to us about intermediary liability and how we deal with- Do we need to rethink?  Do we think about it later? 

And we have joining us remotely, Susan Bennish.  She'll be joining us towards I think the second last speaker.  Hopefully she's with us.  So welcome, Susan.  It's good to have a remote speaker. 

Susan is the faculty associater of the Burton Cline Institute at Harvard and teaches Human Rights at American University School of International Science.  And her work has been really significant.  She's introduced the concept of dangerous speech to this discussion, which is actually been quite a refreshing concept.  And a note, when Susan does come on as our remote speaker, you have to put on your earpiece in order to hear her. 

Chen will speak immediately after Gia has presented research.  She will talk specifically about the Indian experience, and she will also talk about research that she's done.  She's the assistant profession of law at the National Law Universe of Dehli and they've done work on the regulation of hate speech in India, quite in‑depth research and she'll share some of the reflections they've gained from that. 

So on that note.

>> PANELIST:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm really pleased to be here as we're sharing the report and also to be on the panel with colleagues whose work has been cited in the report.  I draw a lot of findings as well as recommendations from the experts. Very briefly, the report was carried out for a process that was covering Malaysia, India, Pakistan.  The context for the report is we're seeing growing levels of religious intolerance and seeing it reflected, carried out in the online spaces.  The levels of threats that have moved between online spaces as well as physical spaces.  Asia hosts several quite devastating cases of individual bloggers, free thinkers, activists, human rights defenders, journalists, who have become victims of attacks for the expression. 

So the purpose is to look at how freedom of religion, freedom of expression is severely attacked.  In general, we're looking at how impressive it is.  The report looks at how the forms of expression often in the context of politics, in the context of critiques of religion that have attacks. 

And the title of the report is Let Them All Do the Job.  In the course of the research, try not to make it a click bit title ‑‑ click bait title. 

It's actually been demonstrated that in a number of countries, we've seen how reactions against free speech.  Reactions against critical, political, and religious views have actually seen organized reactions where we've seen the use of trolls, the use of groups of people who are against these kinds of critical comments that are mobilized online and some are mobilized on the streets. 

In all the countries, we've seen how the reaction sometimes come immediately or sometimes even delayed reactions.  We've noted how there have been agents of hatred or the perpetrators are ‑‑ what we would call as someone of opinion leaders or, yeah, the use of the term agents of hatred used quite widely, have actually mobilized these kinds of reactions.  The report looks at some of the legal framework where the four countries actually share a tradition of legal systems. We see similarities in terms of the loss.  Draw upon what I would say things like offenses related to the religion that is situated within the penal code for the laws.  The laws on the internet are very, very much used in order to curb speech.  So there's a lot of content regulation in the internet laws.  Laws on sedition are used quite frequently.  Laws on national security, especially in the context of terrorism.  So these are similarities I've noted in the four countries where you have seen political elites, governments in power, result to the use of these laws in order to stifle expression, particularly where it's related to religion.  So this is the general trend. 

And also I think that what is also important in the study is that just take a step back to say that there's been a sense of as I said growing intolerance, often facilitated by issues of nationalism, patriotism, or hatredism.  The use of this political mark in religious for expression, there's also been a growing sense of nonstate actors supported by the state institutions in order to also target groups that individuals see as being critical against the political elites as well as the dominant religious narratives. 

Of the four countries, three have Islam as a state region.  We have also seen in India, being the more established democracy of the four, actually also seeing ‑‑ witnessing the use of religion in order to target critiques, journalists, activists, and individual citizens.  I think you've seen enough of lynch mob for example to justify criticisms of the political party as well as this sort of ‑‑ the main religion.  So these are the context in which we've seen attacks being committed against individuals, against groups that begin online and then go off line.  It's very difficult to separate the two.  I think it's being carried out on all the spaces.  So I think I'll stop there, just to provide context for the report. Please check it out online and feel free to ask questions later.

>>Thank you.  You can get the report on APC.org.  And we'll come back to the speakers for proposals on how to move forward.

>>Chen, do you want to react to the report and share more from the Indian context

>>Basically, I was lucky enough to be part of the consultation leading up to the report and I also have in front of me the recommendations which I highly recommend to you.  I'm going to go to the ‑‑ (?). 

Firstly, Gaiya, congratulations there was a lot that was put out there, but she just had a few months to cover something that is contentious, that does not tie together easily.  I cannot begin to describe to you the amount of material that exists just in my country.  So to cover that in others, it's quite a feat.  I see you found a great way to structure it.  I hope everyone can use this report. 

So I've been going through the recommendations.  I would add recommendations to use this as an ongoing process to engage in the global South more broadly.  I think that's really useful, specifically because if you track the institutions within the countries that you've studied, you'll find that they learn a lot from each other that's not very good.  This is a part of the conversation that people were having.

>>For example, the Pakistani person and I were discussing a constitutional flaw.  The first found its way to the main constitution and the Pakistanis thought it was a great idea and put it in their constitution as well.  It's helpful to check these trends as they take place, and you would be shocked at how few avenues we have to create these conversations.  I am very pleased that APC is creating them and we would love to be helpful in whichever way we can. 

The second thing I hope this effort is leading towards, closer national monitoring. 

So if this is going to be a repetitive exercise, if we're working words an index by which these countries have sort of a clear record on dealing with hate speech both on the freedom of expression and ways in which it results in violence, I think that it would be helpful. 

So it's basically to say I'm excited about this report and where it's going. 

Second part of this is I wanted to discuss our own work and what we've learned about Indian law.  And then finally, what I'll do is I'll tell you a little story about why it’s very hard for all our platforms to understand hate speech‑‑ and give you an example. 

We've been doing a study of hate speech laws in detail.  If you wanted to understand what the standard for hate speech in India is, where would you go?  We have a patch work of legislation.  It's taken us years to map it.  And we find every time we take a break for two months, something new happens and we have to revise the whole report.

>>Okay.  We've discovered a few interesting things.  The substantive law is more scattered but arguably overbroad and is subject to creative interpretation depending on who it is that completed the file, what kind of judge is adjudicating the case.  Sometimes that's an issue with the specific words used, but the trouble is, every time there's a hate speech problem in India resulting in violence, it's the substance of law that the country tends to look to change.  That said, the law commission of India has come up with a really interesting report earlier this year.  We went fairly early and worked with it.  And that's been an effort in wrapping down the hate speech standard.  Narrowing it and sharping it, is not a bad wonder if there are two other Indian law on the subject.  (?) The criminal procedure code allows all kinds of exercises that you wouldn't imagine if you read the substantive laws.  The question is not so much would you criminalize in India, the question is what kind of speech can you ban in India and how easily can you do it? 

If you permit abuse of power, there's no way to tell whether a book that has been ceased or banned in India meets the hate speech definition.  The criminal procedure code is a huge issue on that front. 

If you look around for a list of books banned, that would be impossible. 

Tax law is used also to distract hate speech.  Using an arcade publisher of the customs act.  So this is just a flavor of the sort of discoveries we've had.  I don't know if there's time for the story.  But there's a little slide.  This is completely ‑‑ this is how hard it is for online platforms to figure out what is hate speech and what is not.  One of my favorite music places is called Piano Man where bands perform.  It was an event that they listed early this year.  I looked at it, didn't understand what that word meant as a privileged upper class person that hasn't heard a lot of cast abuse in my life.  But that's actually a really offensive term. 

Abusing that is a criminal offense in India.  And as you can see, even an Indian like me had no idea what the word meant.  I had to go and find out.  This to me is interesting of how hard it is for platforms to understand when something is hate speech.  This by the way would identify as criminal speech under one of the legislations in India.  But the people who owned the club didn't understand what it meant.  I didn't understand what it meant.  Sometimes hate speech can be a very local problem and handle (?) That's it for me.  Thank you.

>>One of the questions we wanted to address this should workshop is ways in which verbal speakers and minorities with specifically affected.  Carlos, do you want to tell us the story from Brazil

>>Thanks and thanks for the invitation to join this panel.  I believe my contribution here is very short.  I would just like to tell what is one example from Brazil.  So if you could put up these slides right after the other one.  We have this case a very recent case in Brazil in which an exhibition was put up and in the city of ‑‑ that you could sue states of Brazil called queer (?).  It was focused on LGBT artists and some works of art that are related to this kind of automatic. 

One of the paintings that were part of the distribution was this one and the alter ‑‑ explaining this work apart, saying it's a match between like Jesus and Sheava and in the arms of this mixed God, you have like a ball in his words.  That thinks that western civilization and the bringing to the world.  So it's a criticism of western values and a consumer culture. 

You say you might be different reactions to this painting, but the fact is that a number of conservative groups end up going to this exhibition and creating lots of videos criticizing this work of art and exhibition as a whole and by the end of the day, they managed to shut down the whole exhibition and creating a debate in Brazil about standards for works of art to be exhibited in public spaces and museums. 

As we can expect, suddenly, we got a number of draft bills of law being discussed in the national congress.  On religious and tolerance, discourse on the internet, and we even had a public hearing last month on this very same issue and in the chamber of deputies, the house of representatives in Brazil.  So this is really remarkable because Brazil likes to portray itself as somewhat ‑‑ some will say a racial Utopia.  Some will say it's a country in which being jumped and kind is something that comes without saying for Brazilian people.  But we are seeing the discourse in internets and the whole culture of hate speech might be undermining this perception.  The question we pose ourselves is how do we react to this situation?  And just to conclude, we have two comments.  One on a legal standpoint, Brazil has a law concerning intermediary liability. It’s the Brazil and Internet Bill of Law. It was approved in 2014.  It has a specific provision on intermediary liability.  It's article 19 that says that providers shall not be held liable for content that they end up hosting, like third party contents. 

They would only be held liable if they failed to comply to with the judicial order requesting take down of this specific comment.  So this provision creates the environments that foster free speech.  And does not create incentives for providers to take down one specific content, simply because it has received like a private notification about this content.  But of course, this provision has been challenged and situations like this one that I have just mentioned creates the environment for new views of law that tries to change this provision of the Brazil Internet Bill of Right, creating either a notice and take down provision or creating incentives for platter forms to control speech and language.  I would conclude saying that hate speech together with fake news- now both of them are doing this tag team in terms of (?) that might heed to more content control.  We have elections next year.  You can see how those two issues might interplayed in creating the perfect scenario for congressmen to push forward for a change in the current legislation in Brazil, dealing with those two instruments.  Sometimes it's fake news and misinformation.  Sometime it's hate speech and extreme discourse online.  And bridging them both together here as instruments to change our provision in the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights. Thank you.

>>Thanks very much, Carlos.  Grace.

>>I would like to speak briefly about Kenya around election time, because that was when the issue of hate speech has really been the issue of limelight, not that there have not been conversations on hate speech, but I think this last election of August to October.  We had two elections in three months.  Has actually brought into the limelight issues of hate speech. We have a national commission on integration ‑‑ it's called national cohesion and integration commission that deals with issues of hate speech as well as it's meant to deal with issues of integration.  However it has focused a lot of its efforts on hate speech such that it's not being referred to as the hate commission. 

One of the problems we have is the old definition of the term hate.  That definition is weak.  In a country that has more than 42 ethnic groups, that definition has been unable to pin down exactly what hate speech all about. 

So it's unclear, and each of these ethnic groups have stereotypes.  Stereotype other communities, stereotype other peoples’ behaviors, stereotype women.  And because of that culture elements that underpins some of those stereotypes, it has become challenging to actually legislate cultural issues and the commodity of hate speech. 

Now, during elections, we had a lot of hate speech has manifested itself in several forums.  One, there was the issue of political speech.  So we had politicians from the main party and the opposition all hyping their supporters along ethnicity. 

I think the culture in Kenya is that people support a leader from their ethnic group.  And the way this leadership grouped themselves, you found certain tribes aligning themselves to their ruling party and you found another certain group aligning themselves to the opposition.  And therefore, there was a lot of hyping along what is ours?  What happened is that both politicians then would be accused of hyping their supporters?  Because again that’ll translate into online platforms.  And what happened is that the national commission on hate speech, that's supposed to deal with such issues, was seen to be lenient on the ruling party. 

And you can understand because the chairman is a political appointee of the president.  So it's also balancing where your bread is buttered.  And so the commission was seen to be lenient to the ruling party as opposed to their opposition. 

So when it came to prosecution, whenever they wanted to prosecute somebody from the ruling party, then it also had to prosecute somebody from the opposition.  To try and see that they were balancing.  But of course, there was their issues around with that.  There was also the issue of just ethnicity in interviews on radio and on television where the interviews were conducted by speakers who wanted to show that they were objective but really, they were just pushing forward they believe along ethnic lines.  And along that, then the issue of deformation came along.  You're defending this person or that person.  But really, we have not had a very succinct case of prosecution where people have been prosecuted on hate speech. 

Now (?) the organization I am associated with did work with the national commission on hate speech.  And we produced a report around the elections.  Along hate  speech but we were calling it dangerous speech, fake news.  And some of the issues I'm highlighting from that report.  But what came out is that there was not a lot of correlation between fake news and dangerous speech.  Because fake news was being disseminated but also had a lot of ethnicity and hits and so there were all those challenges.  I don't think I should do ‑‑ since I don't have a minute.  But I could respond.  I'll shut up.

>>Well, let's come back to that.  I'm trying to rush through the initial presentations because I think there will be lots of questions about the specific examples and specific impacts.  So you'll have more time to respond to that.

>>Thanks so much for including me on this panel.  We have heard already when we talk about the hate speech issues, we very often actually talk about the role of intermediaries and that's for a good reason when we talk about online speech, then it is about the enormous amount of content, the speed of dissemination, and the attribution is very often unclear.  You do not know who is the speaker and who to address.  So I think it's understandable at least that we will all focus on intermediaries and arrows and responsibilities and I just will give you two examples from Europe and you can judge yourself whether you find them helpful or not. 

The first is that Germany has enacted in hate speech, fake news law.  It’s called the Network Enforcement Act that will come into effect completely the year 2018 in January.  And what the government did here and the parliament was actually to say that we have a specific set of codes in the criminal law and we take them and we require internet intermediaries, platforms as they're called, to take down content that is obviously illegal, that the term used in the law in 24 hours and the other illegal but not obviously illegal content in six days.  And at first glance, it seems to be good idea to focus on the criminal code and do not try and define hate speech in a new law.  Nevertheless, when you look at the German dictionary, it takes sometimes years to determine whether it is liable or not, for example because to interpret speech is not an easy thing to do.  And what you very often see is that the code at first instance takes another view than the supervising code at second instance in Germany.  So what does it mean? That it is obviously illegal or even illegal? So that’s not really clear what the intermediaries should do there. 

The second critique that is brought forward is that tough time constraints for platforms to take down content just when there is no request to take that down.  We will see whether that's actually the case or not.  David commented on that with a letter to the German federal government.  And what makes that stand out from the government's point of view, efficient.  Instrument is heavy fines and there is a state agency supervising that which has problems on its own because state interference is that thing that's not impossible, as critics say. 

There is one element in the law that most of the observers agreed to, and that is that there's an obligation for platforms to have a local contact person.  I think that's something that is relevant to other countries as well.  I hear the complaint very often that you do not know how to interact with your platforms, except for yesterday after a panel had talked with a representative of an initiative fighting against Islamophobic hate.  She said that we very often have the problem addressed to make clear in a short time.  I told you it was a huge problem.

That that is very effective, shows that Richard Ellen, of Facebook, your team just today announced that next year they will be 1,0002 people wanting your contact in Germany that is if I calculated it correctly, 50 percent of the world-wide team doing that at Facebook and Germany.  And you can on one hand say it was an effective move for the German government, on the other hand there might be more severe cases if hate elsewhere around the world.  This allocation of resources is a rational one or not is something to be discussed. 

Last point, I've had the pleasure of working with the council of Europe the last two years, and we came up for the draft recommendation on words such as intermediaries.  It's very much about clearness of the legal basis, the human rights implications of policies of intermediaries and adequate remedies.  And I accepted to sit on the panals because I wanted to use it as an advertising break to show that we have the staff recommendation.  Please feel free to dominate it and treat it.  Thanks so much.

>>Thanks very much, and now we have Susan who's joining us remotely.  And I'm convinced it will be seamless.

>>Susan, we can hear you.  We have to have your ear pieces on so you're not in the speakers in the room, but all the participants can hear you if they put in their UN translation ear pieces in.  So are your earpiece in? 

(Audio fading in and out.)

.

>>Thanks very much, Susan.  And apologies to anyone who was relying on the transcript.  The captioning, remote participants, apologies to you.  Susan, everyone in the room could hear you, but the sound was fading in and out so the captioning stopped for a little while.  But everyone in the room could hear you clearly.  So thanks very much for that.  David, over to you.

>>Great.  So this is a fantastic set of presentations and so I'm not going to do justice to capturing them, and I don't think that's my remit anyway.  So I just wanted to make maybe three points and then turn it back over to you and open it up to a discussion.  So the first point is I think maybe an overarching point that is evident from all of the presentations, which is hate is real.  People who experience hate, there's not ‑‑ that's the not in question.  The question is how we think about regulating its expression.  And that's all obvious.  And I think the first part of that is definitional.  I think all of the presentations basically made the point that it's very hard to identify and define what hate speech actually is, and I think it's important for us also to recognize that this is a matter of international human rights law.  Hate speech, as a term, it's not a term of art.  When we talk about hate speech or what states are able to regulate, it's under article 20 of the ICCPR, which is states ‑‑ ICCPR, which is states are to prohibit.  But under an obligation to prohibit speech or its advocacy that constitutes incitement to hatred, hostility, or its discrimination, hostility, or violence.  So the content for what's regulable, right, is not merely it's hate speech.  It's the kind of hate speech that constitutes incitement. 

So I think one fundamental question for the platforms and for us, and it's not an easy question because there may be differences with online hatred, online expression of hate, that may vary from offline expression.  But the question is should that excitement standard, which is a standard for governments of human rights law, be the standard that the platform should be adopting?  I'm not going to answer that, but I think it's an important question for people to be thinking through. 

And second part of this, and this comes through in Gia's report for APC.  And I think this is important is that when particularly when we're getting to the stage of hateful expression online, that law enforcement not monitor it but deal with actual instances that constitute harassment, that may constitute threats, imminent threats of violence, that law enforcement not treat online space as some kind of jurisdictional-free zone and allow real threats to flourish. 

So at least as a kind of base line issue, I think it's important for those threats ‑‑ and again, this is in Gia's report.  It's important for law enforcement to treat those threats as real.  And one possibility might be that the ‑‑ that law enforcement's selective approach to real threats may actually foster hateful content but also foster the sense that many people have that hate is rampant and certainly online and that it leads to harms off line.  So I think that that's ‑‑ I think it's important for law enforcement to take those kinds of steps. 

And then the last set of points, I would make it around the private sector.  It's very easy to throw around transparency as a response to this.  It's real.  Susan made this point, and I'm glad she did.  We just know very little about what kind of content is being taken down.  I'd like to see more than just transparency about rules.  I'd like to see transparency about application of the rules.  So my sense and I’m talking some of the companies, or at least one of the companies, is that companies, you know, they're sort of developing their own version of case law. 

It may not look like the case reporters that we're all used to, if you went to law school and actually practiced law if you go and look at cases, but they certainly collect the instances of content that they're taking down.  They certainly use it for the training of kind of their growing legions of content moderators.  And I think that kind of ‑‑ even if we got rid of some of the privacy implications, you know, and so the more hypotheticals.  If we at least have more of a sense of the kinds of cases, the kinds of content that the platforms are dealing with, then we would at least have a conversation with the platforms and with governments that is about a fuller sense of information so we're all operating at the same level of ‑‑ like this is the actual content that we're all talking about.  So I'd like us to move beyond the transparency of rules to translation of application of the rules and not just for the purposes of some vague sense of transparency, but so that the conversation can be, this is what's being taken down.  This is what's staying up.  This is what we're evaluating and actually deciding doesn't need to be taken down.  And I don't know if we have a very clear sense of how that's operating.  I don't.  Maybe some people in the room might have that sense. 

And then the last point is consistency of application.  Because it does seem and pick your platform, it does seem that certain kinds of cases get noticed and then the consent is taken down and other content stays up and it's not really clear why, but it's also ‑‑ seems pretty evident that there's not real consistency in terms of applications of the rules.  So those are just some of my reactions to the presentations that were made, and I think we're all very rich and probably spark some conversation that we could start.

>>Thanks very much.  So opening it to the panelists to ask one another questions but also to the room to ask any questions.  I see a hand over there.  We'll start from that side and go.  Go ahead and introduce yourself and be brief, please.

>>My name is Runiano (?) and I work at the EBI in Brazil.  I'd like to make a point on the first question. 

Hate speech is related to the idea recognition, the social recognition.  Recognition is a fundamental concept of society.  It's related to help the people regarded as individuals.  Hate speech affects dignity and doing so attacks recognition.  (Static for audio.) Those platforms are recognized by the data and algorithms. One of the phenomena that had been an item that have been an item defined is the bubbles(?).  Those dynamics aside (?) Strengthening (?).  They're each called convictions, religious convictions.  Instead of videos and contact to diversity as internet at first, we believe that they would do so.  It's possible that those platforms are creating environment where the recognition of the differences of diversity is being threatened. 

While we should be patient ‑‑ because the influence of social networks and the public's fear is increasing and as we know the public’s fear sets the basis for the origin and the exercise of political power.  Then I would like- I mean, someone should comment on the idea that we should pay attention to algorithms and big data and how this is creating social dynamics that do not expect by society and by those companies that say those kinds of technologies to work on their platforms.

>>Thanks for that.  Over here.

>>Thank you very much.  My name is (Static for audio.).  special solution for all kinds of hate speech or maybe different kinds of hate speech should be threatened separately.  Thank you very much.

>>That's a really interesting question.  I'll come back to the person next to you.  So you over there, and then over there.  And I think then I'll take another round.  Okay, I'll try to be fast.

>>(Static for audio.).

>>That's fine.  Thanks for telling us more about that particular case.  And we'll take one more person on this side and we'll have responses and then we'll come back.

>>I'm (?) From India.  Hate speech in one treat different people.  Number one, the parliament of a decides on what is the definition of hate speech.  So that is going to be based on the local customs, laws, or whatever and be need to respect that.  Number one. 

Number two, how the security agencies interpret it in terms of law?  Right

And third is a medium that has not come up, which is internet.  Internet like she said is a very powerful media.  Which in matter of seconds or minutes can inflame passions beyond a particle of control.  There is no two ways about it.  I have seen it happen in life, and it can be very, very destructive.  So it is becoming imperative that we now look at ways and means.  How do we counter it?  Because any heat speech that can cause physical or mental harm to anyone should not be permitted. 

Now the question comes in a very inflamed situation, if you shut down, you have got another set of people saying you are stopping freedom of expression freedom of speech.  So it is a dilemma which needs further discussion so we can arrive at some kind of solutions to it.  Thanks.

>>Thanks and I think that's quite a bit to respond to the panel.  I want to add one question because it picks up particularly on some of the presentations and the idea about conversations with platforms. 

And David, you mentioned it, Susan also mentioned it ‑‑ do you think that should be approached as it is at the moment with generally a platform by platform conversation where particularly interest group for example in countering gender-based conflicts.  There's been conversations with Facebook, several conversations with Twitter and so on?  Do you think we need to have a common platform for conversations with multiple platforms.  So are we looking for a mechanism where we can begin to do it together or do you think this method of having these ‑‑ it's almost a multilateral versus a bilateral approach works best. 

There are lots of questions to respond to.  No one asked for speakers to respond specifically.  So we'll be glad to start.

>>I think I'll take on two questions.  In the context of political hate speech, I think at least if I see from the research that we've done the confusion of the speech right, whether it's political, religious.  The use of religion to try and shoot down political content.  So we've seen that at the various levels of speech, which is problematic.  And I think the question about whether the algorithm and big data may be direct to it (?) So it's not enough to say that we need to ask (?) But also to understand who exists online, whose presence online is dominant, how it's actually keeping this out?  So among other things impact has been a special fall for women discussing political issues or you know LGBT persons who have had to withdraw from those places. 

Because even online you've seen those who had top painted the speech of the pies, also we need that level of power coalition. 

So I think if you're discussing the algorithm, you need to recognize that these qualities exist.  And that the speech has taken mace online or is affected online.  So one is the inflation of the different issues so where you've managed to make points about an individual' side chosen to be blasphemous for example.  And on the other hand make it quantities that exist.  Also makes it difficult to say okay social media is doing all of this.  But it's not really social media.  You have to take a look back and look at the issues of society that we also have to address.  Thank you.

>>Thanks.  I adjust want to say that I have to be in a pam in two minutes so I've deposit to go but for those of you who want to get more information on the cases that we have mentioned, there is a ‑‑ in the Twitter and OIJ.  For this session, there's all go go places.  An article on this subject.  That might be more useful.  I'm sorry, you said I had to listen.  How about an hour?  Thank you.

>>Thanks.  You want to respond

>>Thank for joining us on the panel.

>>Sorry.

>>Yes, maybe just two points.  The first intervention on (?) Which is an extremely important issue and since Carlos had to heave, I may speak for the research centers that have joined in the network offered in the society research centers and we specifically put inclusion and that has diversity dimensions as well and artificial intelligence to some extent a decisionmaking for general and the focus for the next two years.  And there's a lot of research knowing on on that July now.  You can't really follow it.  There are so many interesting things happening so I think that the addressed.  And I think it's important that it is addressed and very specific and granular way, plus the concept of (?) Because it is possible but that does not mean that it empirically exists.  The studies I know is that in some cases, you can't even show that.  And others for some right the movement starts up and there are studies to show that their rel, is.  So I think it would be extremely important to do that and as we got to the specifics, which I think an intubation lying you're under the speech is one element, but I need ‑‑ but more important things is what kind of hard this causes potentially.  How imminent was the danger and things like that.  I think that's the more important for the concept of combatting dangerous than the motivation part.

>>But isn't that how do you define that heart?  I think is that also challenging?  But I think David you submit that even the existing human rights framework has the obligational stance to look at the speech from the perspective of what that speech will read, what the excitement angle was.  And my question is do we expect the name for platforms?  How do we approach that stig?  If you're looking at the speech in terms of the heart

>>Just briefly, (?) And when it is about life and physical harm, things like that and we're very very solid to criteria to do that and that is in terms of human rights at least more important than the public order us actually if that was not in consequence, something that expects at specific harm.  It's not exhaustive but it's not ‑‑.

>>Completely unciviled ground here.

>>All right.  We'll have a GI and then grace will respond and we'll put it back to the room.

>>I'm pleased when you say that.  I think one thing we can learn from this fight I've put up is I've come across the fight the last two years is stop thinking of physical harm and start thinking of other items.  And so for me this question of marginalized groups, you highlight it.  We have interesting legislative formulations in India that I would be happy to discuss off line later.  Just to (?) We're actually speech project and then going into algorithms, AI and (?) Data. 

I also happen to run into a certain interesting I provided last week which I'll beopy to scare with you after the session if you're interested in drinking it.

>>Grace.

>>I look at the issue of platforms, of one of the challenges that we must continue conflicting and we do have to think about it because it's a completely new challenge for this mess.  (?) And especially with their (?) Pause the front of it is continuous.  There's a lack of keeping in red or social platforms. 

The fact that they pride extreme freedom of expression, we need to start lining ‑‑ dealing with an issue of the front also limits to freedom of expression.  And human rights also have that.  (?) That's junk.  In the last 2012 (?) First book was the platform, to each.  And most citizens are engaged on Facebook.  Then there are issues of (?) That it can be chopped what you're seeing.  And in 2008, everybody will be on to what's up.  So whether there are multipacks, hundreds or what's up.  And you can actually tell that some people get stressed out by their communications pause you keep seeing people lefty.  Some has left.  (?) This group is not allowing us to express ourselves so let's form another one.  And I think because of the nature and magazine of technology and social platforms and the word to settle people, let them feel free to engage.  I think it's something that you must also start conflicting.

>>And a really good example of how thinking that the solution lies at the platform level is not necessarily going to work.

>>This composition must be hard on the computer.  Because these solutions on how to deal with the compositions and with the people.  There are platforms, people would say no, no, can you control what your (?) And these are our own rules.  So please to not go against that because we will ‑‑ you know, the administrator will ration you and you lose your friend.  I think it's a condition that all of us must have.

>>And Susan also wanted to try to respond to thi.  So put on your head sets again. 

(Static for audio.)

I work in the root.  My ‑‑ I'm going to try to make my question brief.  So one of the (?) One of the possible thing that's the happening is we don't have yet interrelation.  I think that's something if, not bad.  May main question is I saw yesterday and today a picture of a priest and a none that's a picture like having breakfast and I think it's very interesting to see this yearism what's happened in bay route, less than a month ago (?) Facebook account about (?) He was drunk and apologized but he was arrested and detained for 15 days. 

I've been trying to talk to the police officer, trying to talk to a few people.  I understand that a lot of people were berating him.  And the judge was really intimidated by these reports, so he actually said, let's put him in detention and a lot of (?) Were actually soothing him but every 1 or 2 days (?) Insulting violence.  Like a lot of things from the penical.  So how can we make the society from being very conserve, full of hate, to society that actually accepts different norms, different idea

>>Thank you.  My question goes to Grace.

>>Just introduce yourself first.

>>Okay.  My name is Josh.  My question is about hate speech.  There's been an increase of incidents of hate speech in Kenya.  So the ceppian development decided to crack down on what's happened with the black ministry. So my question is how (?) Is this?  And what is the intent (?).

>>Thank you.  And over the.

>>Thanks.  My name's paca.  And just first reaction to what Davided in terms of often times, frozen principles, it's sort of a top‑down approach.  And I'm wondering if the better way (?) A better sort of just proswould be look at this issue through the right to private life.  And this is not my idea.  I'm just thinking of last year, we had a case of human right where he was just hungry where a Roman woman thought (?) Protest and she pursued against him (?) In court, instead of looking at the article ten violation, the court looked at it and sensed (?) So because the government didn't do anything, that means to private right in article eight was violated.  (?) I'm wondering if there's a better way to do it.  At the end of the day, they reach the victims.

>>And just behind you.  You have the last question.

>>Thank you.

>>Hi, I'm (Static for audio.) I would like to wake up on two things after private sector.  We have the biggest (?)Ope forum for the users and oh, see we have the comment feed on the new spaces.  (?) Species made (?) So we have the team to (?) Different, injury facing every day is the one is different on our expiration because the gun (?) Bad feelings and I'd like to express it.  So I got a real early set of (?) How to reach (?) Or a respect people's right to speak up.  (?) It's like a (?) Depends on the context.  Like I say sorry about that ‑‑ example, hey I was raped.  Is it the hate speech here, is it kind of like a personal expression of anger?  The finish is very hard for us to take.  So we can ‑‑ we respect the point, transparency of the vacation and the (?) But sometimes it's difficult to just express in one see this (?) Yeah, why it was taken down or not.

>>So the application is not easy.

>>So you have to now make your closing remarks and respond to these questions.  Grace, why don't you start and we'll move to the others.

>>The question of prosecuting at (?) I think you and I know that it's (?).  When Kenyans weren't threatened by their chair of the national cohesion and aggression commission that he was going to start arresting administrators of the groups because of the niche of content that was being expressed there, a lot of Kenyans actually left about it.  Because one of the things I think it demonstrated a lack of understanding of how sudden platforms work or how certain technologies work. 

And I think he still wants to believe that (?) That he would not allow that unless people share those (?) But felony you can always see the effect in connection and see the feet.  That does affect freedom of expression because there's some people who believe that the chairman can actually arrest them and they're afraid of that content.  One of the things were made (?) That because people know his phone number (?) And make him (?) So that as he arrests (?) Arrested.  So I think it's not sustainable and again like I had I have no hard and fast answer to that, but I think it's something which requires a very honest composition.  And to say, again like David said, it's (?).

>>Okay.  And please don't forget the big question about how we give more tolerance in our societies.

>>I hoped you wouldn't remind us.  I really have an item of first would have been looking at your case, but it again highlights how important educates an independent legal system is because otherwise the risk when we have to deal with religious issues, it's all about symbolics and symbolic judgments are likely to occur and to have a system where it's the degree of individual gauge and what's the demands of population or thoughts of population is not at home.  That's not an answer.  You need to re‑create the culture and society as well.  I can only (?)

The second one, the notion of the European (?) I think they have other interesting judgments likely.  Extremely interesting to what we are discussing here right now, especially these positive obligations are article eight.  And the other (?) Technical thing that privacy and protection becomes a kind of super human right and anything is succeed and he's making not of the best solution for the thing. 

Last element I advertised the consulate here.  Now I have another hat, and that is the UNESCO hat.  And what I would hike to suggest is picking one of the recommendations from the (?) And indicators to make that (?) Instrument and like to draw your attention to this if it's not (?) For observation already that UNESCO has (?) For freedom of the internet and that's under March, I think, and if he could link those instruments, I think that would be great (?) And when I can have that, we'll do that differently.  Thank you.

>>How not to build intolerance.  Examples are text books (?) That's the kind of thing that spins hate.  You can usually see it when it's happening around you.  What did you go after in terms of hate speech online?  Just off the top of my head, I think I would focus on systematic heat as opposed to one‑off incident.  And the finally, I don't think that treating with expression should ever be stepped away from in relation to hate speech.  (?) Maybe what's helping is thinking of the institution.  A lot of the problems arise in how it's implemented and we need (?) So maybe that's where we can focus all of our energies.

>>Thanks to my David.

>>So first Mohammed's question how to change societies.  That's how you put it.  How do you change your societies?  Which I feel you're trolling us or something.  I have a couple thoughts on that which are not really freedom of expression per se.  But I think one is the kind of work that you're doing, but others actually on this panel are doing, which is a combination of research and ad havingacy is really important because the kind of work that you're doing is rigorous and feeds back into actually making change.  And I think that's the critical and it's evidence based and that's really important and I don't think you should minimize the role that you play.  And related to that, on the advocacy side is I think that (?) The only way to really change society, and obviously that's too much to chew, is to win elections too, actually put yourself out there to make those kinds of changes yourself rather than always being in the position of (?) Or supplement you know for government to make the change for you. 

So Mohammed for president, maybe.  I don't know.  But I think that that's ‑‑ to put it another way, just engaging is really critical and engaging at the most local levels, we actually talk to people and understand their experience. 

The point was made earlier about a mob I think was in the title.  You know, talking to people who get caught up in mobs and understanding the relationship between the platforms and expression and how it connects to the evils ‑‑ and by mob, I think you're referring to both online and off line.  I think we need to understand that connection better, certainly before it's regulated and certainly before we get to the place of shutting down networks to deal with those things.  And then the last thing, I'm sure we're over time, I do think the bilateral approach, going company by company is relatively ‑‑ I can people need to broughten that out, and I think it need to be approaches although this is very hard and companies will push back, but certainly in an environment where regulation is coming, I think it's important for the companies to be thinking more about how they can think generally.  In a context where we've already got more in the U.S. and ripping consent, things like GI, that kind of response is (?).

>>And I think that also answers your questions about helping the platforms deal with these quite difficult decisions that they have to make.  So we have to end, I'm afraid.  I know this is not a very satisfactory discussion because it's such a deep issue and as David said, it is real.  And we talked about talking to other platforms.  I think we haven't talked enough about talking with governments.  Because there's a hope of partnering with government but also confronting the fact that sometimes governments abuse and manipulate.  So but we do need to engage with them.  Thanks everyone for coming.  Maybe we need to go back to school on this topic so we can deal with it comprehensively over a longer period of time.  Thanks everyone. 
[APPLAUSE]