Hey guys,
I wanted to bring this event to light, as though it seems like a fairly regular occurrence of someone abusing their privilege of active social media opinions, the implications behind it are paramount to a proper legislative decision on the topic of religious freedom.
This article describes how German AFD politician Beatrix von Storch had her account suspended for a week as a direct result of an inflammatory tweet sent out in December. Storch's tweet read:
“What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is the official page of police in NRW tweeting in Arabic [...] are they seeking to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men?”
The Alternative for Germany (AFD) party is a German far right, nationalist party that gained traction after German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided in favor of opening Germany’s borders to more than a million asylum-seeking migrants. The party is weakly aligned with Euroscepticism, but deny any support for Muslims within the framework of the German Constitution and is strongly anti-immigration; their support among the populace seems to be growing as it won 12.6% of the vote and received 94 seats in the 2017 German federal elections.
The Alternative for Germany (AFD) party is a German far right, nationalist party that gained traction after German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided in favor of opening Germany’s borders to more than a million asylum-seeking migrants. The party is weakly aligned with Euroscepticism, but deny any support for Muslims within the framework of the German Constitution and is strongly anti-immigration; their support among the populace seems to be growing as it won 12.6% of the vote and received 94 seats in the 2017 German federal elections.
When analyzing this article, take care not to question the validity of Storch's opinions based on your own views; as a delegate to the UNHRC, your committee's job is to protect the universal freedoms of belief within its jurisdiction.
Rather, questions that you should think about is the role of external services and organizations (in this case, Twitter) in maintaining universal freedoms and censoring dissident speech, especially in the views proposed by a politician in a foreign party. Do social media platforms have a social duty to cut-off hate speech and fake news, or are they simply a vessel for conversation to take place? What role does an international body such as the UNHRC have in regulating a platform based domestically in the US? Delegates should ask how a possible resolution would balance the freedoms of speech and religion, and what role new technologies should take in this.
Discuss down in the comments below, and try to think on these questions! And as always, if you have any questions, either on this topic or on conference logistics, feel free to reach our to us !
~ Soham
Hello fellow delegates and Honorable Chair,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this interesting and thought-provoking question. The delegation of the US is strongly committed to freedom of speech, as outlined in our Constitution. This delegation firmly believes that social media platforms do not have an obligation to censor speech, unless it is directly inciting violence or encouraging terror group recruitment. All other forms of dissident speech must be allowed if we are to live in a free society, thus social media can only be used as a platform for conversation. The UNHRC should refrain from regulating domestically-based platforms, unless a grave problem of a global scale arises that the UN must address. Aside from that, this delegation emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty in domestic affairs.
Hello delegates,
ReplyDeleteAlthough worldwide social media have been used as a tool for conversations, Germany believes that they have a social duty to cut-off hate speech that occurs on any social media platform. In 2017, Germany passed a anti-hate speech law, NetzDG, that made it mandatory for websites to examine all reports of illegal posts and delete most of them within 24 hours. This law officially passed in June of 2017, but a grace period was provided in order to install internal systems by January 1st of 2018. Since the enforcement of this law, Germany has been banning all content related to neo-Nazi propaganda and the denial of the Holocaust. However, with the implementation of NetzDG, groups like Reporters Without Borders and the Alternative for Germany have fought against issues, such as as the freedom of speech and the risk of censorship. However, Germany believes that through this law, social media companies will become more attentive about hate speech. Supporter of NetzDG, Anas Modamani, refugee from Syria, was harmed when people accused him of attacks in Brussels and Berlins for taking a picture with Angela Merkel as he was visiting a migrant shelter. The picture was used as false new reports, which truly altered his life with sadness. Modamani believes that through NetzDG, fake news can be removed in order to prevent other people from feeling the same way he felt.
Hello Fellow Delegates and Honorable Chairs,
ReplyDeleteAs a supporter of national security and stability, the delegation of China is in favor of domestic regulation of external platforms like social media sites in the event that it is a threat to China’s values and policy. External services and organizations should be allowed to maintain universal freedoms so long as it does not promote dissident speech, regardless of whether they are views expressed by foreign individuals. Social media platforms absolutely have the social duty to censor and modulate hate speech as they are international entities that possess the ability to exert a large amount of influence over various populations and the global community as a whole. Though some may argue that these sites are only a vessel for conversation, as stated in the post, this is untrue as social media platforms also play an important role in international affairs. In fact, social media sites serve as a buffer for national governments to ensure long-term sanctity and unity. When the aforementioned sites fail to maintain these relations, political stability will be at risk, which can specifically pose a threat during times of controversy. Within the nation of China, one example of upheaval was during the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre which caused social agitation and political turmoil. In response, the Communist party blocked specific media sites in order to prevent the spread of false information and unrest. On an international scale, the same action can be applied to mitigate and quiet situations of confusion and disturbance. Acknowledging the reach of external platforms, it is essential that these corporations take on the responsibility of removing harmful discussion that may impede on economic and political relations between nations of the international community.
In regards to the involvement of international bodies like the UNHRC, the regulation of platforms based domestically in the United States should only be addressed if the service in mention fails to take a stance on problematic issues of expression and hate speech. Should the platform be evaluated to have not successfully taken control of the situation, international bodies have the right to interfere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGermany would like to recognize that the United States has considered withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council due to the biased stance that has been taken on Israel, when five resolutions were passed against the country. The lack of consideration against Venezuela where human rights violations present has inclined the United States to call for the Council to address those issues and adopt ‘the strongest possible resolutions[...] in Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Belarus and Ukraine’(Jay Akbar). Previously, the United States committed to the advancement of human rights within the United Nation system to become an advocate, work to advance the protection of human rights and participate in the UN General Assembly reviews of the Human Rights Council.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, Germany believes that the role of the UNHRC in the international community is to promote human rights and address the violations while introducing recommendations and keeping all countries intact and as active participants. The UNHRC holds responsibility to effectively utilize the Universal Periodic Review which reviews human rights records in member States and provides each State to identify actions for improvement on human rights that have been taken. By ensuring the use of the Universal Periodic Review, it would stabilize the participation of countries and their effort to provide equal treatment where human rights are not prevalent. The UNHRC must not take any biased stances but effectively monitor and advise countries and follow the Guidelines on Public Exhibitions and Special Events. These Guidelines state that the UN must be “artistic and /or cultural nature rather than political nature[...] shall not single out or refer to any other State without that State’s consent”. Thus, if the UNHRC follows these guidelines, countries like the United States would not view the UNHRC as a biased Council but perceive the UNHRC to be a guiding commission as other Member States would.
-Germany