Is the return of the law against online hate possible and necessary?

A protester in Marseille during the tribute to Samuel Paty, October 18, 2020. -

• Adopted in Parliament, Laetitia Avia's bill “against online hatred” was almost completely censored by the Constitutional Council last June.

• Since the assassination, Friday October 16, of Samuel Paty, professor at the colleges of Bois d'Aulne, members of the government and elected officials denounce the passivity and "responsibility" of social networks.

• Government spokesman Gabriel Attal and MP Laetitia Avia said a "legislative device" was once again being considered to fight online hatred.

• At the same time, Marlène Schiappa, Minister responsible for citizenship, receives this Internet platforms to ask them to fight against "cyberislalmism".

What role did social media play in the attack that claimed the life of Samuel Paty?

Beheaded on Friday October 16 at the end of the college where he taught in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine (Yvelines), the history-geography professor had been the subject of strong criticism on these online platforms in the previous weeks.

In question ?

A course on freedom of expression given by Samuel Paty during which he distributed to his students caricatures of Muhammad published in 

.

Furious, the father of a schoolgirl posted on October 7 several messages and a video on Facebook in which he called for the exclusion of this teacher, described as a "thug".

His name, that of the school and his phone number were also released.

For the time being, investigators are still trying to determine the possible links between the terrorist - a young 18-year-old Chechen living in Evreux - and the authors and relays of these contents aimed at Samuel Paty.

But for part of the political class and for the government, the “responsibility” of platforms, Twitter and Facebook, is no longer to be demonstrated.

Some now call for legislation and deplore the censorship, last June by the Constitutional Council, of a bill aimed at fighting "against online hatred".

• Why is the Avia law returning to the debate today?

In this terrorist attack, two elements push the executive to advocate better "supervision" of social networks.

There are these videos and messages incriminating the teacher and there is the assailant's online activity.

In a tweet posted on October 17, the Licra (International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism) said it had "reported" on July 27 a message of an anti-Semitic nature posted by the perpetrator on his account.

If the tweet was deleted in the "hours that followed", said Licra, his profile remained active until the attack, since it was on Twitter that the jihadist posted his claim, accompanied by a photograph of his victim.

On July 27, @_LICRA_ reported to @TwitterSupport an anti-Semitic tweet posted by @ tchetchene_270, an account implicated in yesterday's terrorist acts.

This tweet was deleted by Twitter within hours.

We pass these elements on to justice.

- Licra (@_LICRA_) October 17, 2020

On

, government spokesman Gabriel Attal felt that the responsibility of social networks was therefore engaged in this case.

“Things started on social media with the videos of this parent of a student and it ended with this abject photo posted on social media by the terrorist.

So yes, they have a responsibility and yes we must manage to better supervise them ”.

He specified that the government was working on "a legal device that allows (...) to fight against hatred on social networks".

Partially disowned by the Constitutional Council last June, the elected official of the majority at the origin of the bill that bears her name, Laetitia Avia, has also confirmed to the 

 This tragedy proves that regulating social networks is necessary.

From the president's speech on separatism at Les Mureaux, we resumed our work in order to find a mechanism that works.

And this weekend, yes, there was an acceleration ”.

• What did the text provide and why was it censored by the Constitutional Council last June?

The text voted on and adopted by Parliament imposed on platforms and search engines the obligation to remove “clearly” illegal content within 24 hours, under penalty of fines of up to 1.25 million euros. .

Incitement to hatred, violence and insults of a racist or religious nature were targeted.

For terrorist or child pornography content and in the event of notification by the authorities, these actors had only one hour to delete them.

But the Sages censured much of these provisions.

“The law required private actors - under penalty of sanction - to become a judge and to determine whether such or such content is illegal.

This creates a confusion of roles between the public service of justice - carried out by a judicial judge, independent and impartial - and private actors ”, details to 

Farah Safi

associate professor of private law and criminal sciences at Clermont University -Auvergne.

Another problem raised by the text: the risk of censorship.

Farah Safi explains: “The Constitutional Council was very severe on this subject.

There was a fear of seeing the platforms remove content so as not to have to pay a fine and therefore a risk of infringing our freedom of expression ”.

• What form could the new “legal system” wanted by the government take?

Laetitia Avia announced to 

that articles on "the moderation of hateful content and how to better identify their authors (...) could be examined within the framework of a bill (...) or the separatism bill".

A few hours later, she told AFP that she had "presented a certain number of measures which take into consideration what the Constitutional Council has mentioned as difficulties".

But nothing has been defined for the moment, the text on separatism still being drafted.

Already cooled by the censorship of the dedicated text in June, the exercise promises to be perilous for the executive.

"We voted for the text without difficulty in May," recalls the deputy and president of the UDI group in the Assembly, Jean-Christophe Lagarde.

But the Constitutional Council said that it was not constitutional.

Perhaps the question should be moved.

If it is not possible to make publishers accountable, perhaps we should consider a toughening of lawsuits against issuers?

“, Suggests the elected representative of Seine-Saint-Denis.

This Tuesday, Marlène Schiappa, Minister Delegate to the Minister of the Interior, will bring together the French bosses of Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok and Snapchat to address the issue of the fight against “cyberislamism”.

According to our information, the Minister intends to reconsider the “appeasement” granted to “hate preachers” online by these platforms and expects concrete proposals from them.

• Is a new text necessary?

This is the whole question which is agitating the debate today.

Asked about this, the government spokesperson admitted: "Would the device, as proposed [in the Avia law], have made it possible to remove this video?"

I don't know ”.

However, this is what the Minister of the Interior assured during an interview with

For the minister, we must fight against hatred online "They obviously launched a fatwa against this professor. The government and the Parliament tried to fight against hatred in line with the Avia law. A law refused by the Constitutional Council # Europe1 pic.twitter.com/c5SRq1uVbp

- Europe 1 🎧🌍📻 (@ Europe1) October 19, 2020

For LREM deputy Eric Bothorel, the answer does not necessarily have to be in the legislative field, or at least not at the national level:

“I think we have to gain by building a doctrine around this content and the responsibility of these platforms on a European scale.

This is the object of

Digital Services Act, supported by the European Commission.

Friday's drama should not lead us to rush things.

When Manuel Valls says that we must change the Constitution to allow the law against online hatred to pass, we are delirious!

"

Law professor Farah Safi believes that no modification of the initial text would make it possible to act effectively.

She also recalls that the French legal arsenal is already sufficient: “The people who disseminated the terrorist's claim are already falling within the scope of the law.

It is provocation to an act of terrorism.

As for the hosts, two texts make it possible to engage their responsibility.

The law on confidence in the digital economy, completed in 2017, makes online operators more responsible, with an obligation to contribute to the fight against the dissemination of racist offenses, for example.

And the law of July 29, 1982 provides for a sanction when the host does not act promptly to remove illegal content when he becomes aware of it.

"

Finally, the question of the resources allocated to Pharos, the service responsible for collecting reports of this illegal and violent content, arises more sharply, considers LREM deputy Eric Bothorel: "The question that must be asked is how from which the reports made to Pharos are investigated.

Wouldn't the assailant have taken action if he hadn't been able to pour out his hatred on Twitter?

How do we deal with this multitude of reported individuals to prevent them from committing their crimes?

".

In 2018, the service consisted of 27 police officers and gendarmes, specialists in cybercrime.

That same year, they received 163,000 reports, or more than 3,000 each week.

Society

Attack in Conflans: Marlène Schiappa brings together the police services to fight against "cyberislamism"

Justice

Conflans attack: What risk the authors of the 80 messages of support for the terrorist?

• Conflans attack

• Terrorism

• By the Web

• Video

• Jihadism

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Social networks

• Laetitia Avia