Added: Aesha Reep - Date: 03.12.2021 00:48 - Views: 32458 - Clicks: 6286
This led to a large of migrants entering Slovenia, which spurred heated and often hostile debates in the Slovenian public sphere. Many used social media to voice their fears and hatred towards migrants, with some comments bordering on hate speech and many others crossing that line. FRA Update 1, ; FRA Update 2, ; Council of Europe, Since increased expressions of intolerance and hatred never resulted in any kind of action from the public authorities, several civil-society actors started to raise awareness of hate speech by issuing different appeals to the public for respect in public debates.
Not much attention was given to the by the general public, until some of the posts, with their enlarged photos, were printed and posted in random public spaces throughout Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. The change of platform, however, meant that the same comments and their authors suddenly became subject to public judgment and condemnation for their unacceptable, immoral or even illegal nature.
This, in turn, stimulated public interest and discussion, which took place both on the digital platform of Zlovenija as well as in traditional media. What was at first just an obscure Tumblr became a pillory with a mission to initiate a discussion on the issue of hate speech, remind people that the Internet is a public space and that their words have meaning and consequences, and hold the mirror up to the society and condemn all intolerance and violence Zlovenija, The people exposed on Zlovenija were, to our knowledge, not subject to repercussions in the workspace or family context such as for example in the Charlottesville case, cf.\
Milbrandt, this volume. They were, however subject to public scrutiny and served as the public face of hatred and intolerance. The author s of the 3 acknowledged this concern when they pointed out that:. But they did not. This should not exist because it bears witness to the fact that all other ways of maintaining the basic standards of civilisation failed, and we are left with barely holding up the mirror. Here, look at your own evil Zlovenija, First, we will analyse the original posts that were published on Zlovenija and look for patterns and commonalities, as well as the criteria used to select them.
We aim to provide a close reading of the content that was used and the source of further developments.
Second, we analyse the debates on Zlovenija that followed the original posts and include explanations posted by the authors of the original Facebook posts, as well as responses from the general public that were published on the. Third, we take a broader look at the response of the wider public online, mainly searching through popular online platforms and fora, as well as the reaction of the general media, looking through commentaries and news concerning Zlovenija.
We supplemented the literature and textual analysis with additional information we gathered from the author s of Zlovenija in an interview we conducted in December We were able to contact the author s through the web and various other means and we were able to confirm their authenticity, hence their answers give important insights into the operation of the. Finally, we will attempt to understand and critically assess the ideas and the methods used by Zlovenija, and the repercussions of its activities.
The author s explained that:. Then I started to post it in a private group and discuss with friends, that we could do something like this. I set up the Tumblr quite quickly and tried to make a few posts and I thought that it works and then it was launched.
Moreover, just a few days before Zlovenija was shut down, it provided a new option to the Facebook posters to request the removal of a post in case they deleted the original Facebook comment and apologised. Like the itself, the invitation to apologise was not very specific or premeditated; it was introduced after initial spontaneous apologies to the Tumblr from the authors of some of the posts. The apology had to be submitted via the Tumblr and then it substituted the reposted Facebook post on Zlovenija ibid.
There are several reasons why it stopped actively posting after less than two weeks, but the main cause was the sudden emergence of posters depicting the Facebook posts exposed on Zlovenija throughout Ljubljana. This was an action that was neither anticipated nor performed by the author s of Zlovenija, but according to the author s it was also:. As long as Zlovenija stayed online, everything was okay, but as soon as the stickers [printed versions of Facebook posts] appeared, it escalated to another level and it became a better story for the media, as it was a real-life shaming pillar ibid.
If uncovering the author s of Zlovenija had ly seemed impossible, the author s feared that with the help of the international community of hackers this became a foreseeable possibility ibid. Subsequently, we combined the findings from our thematic analysis with the insights we gained from the interview with the author s of Zlovenija. Illustration by Tibor Bolha All rights reserved.
The quote is an example of the merging of two of our content explained below: calls for violence and implicitly referring to authoritarian regimes. The Nazi regime is invoked by the reference to gas chambers, and the Soviet Communist regime by paraphrasing one of its mottos death to Fascism, liberty to the people. This Facebook profile picture depicts a couple kissing. The Facebook profile picture depicts a dad carrying his smiling child on his shoulders. Most of the hateful Facebook posts were published either as comments on news articles covering the topic of the migrant crisis, which were shared on Facebook or in public Facebook groups known for supporting anti-migrant rhetoric e.
This is also the reason the profile picture was not always chosen to accompany the comment, but rather the picture that offered the biggest contrast to the hate emanating from the comments Interview with Zlovenija, This is in line with recent studies on how gender determines the content published on social networking sites SNS such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Although women were found to be predominant SNS users during the past decade, today men and women are using SNS at very similar rates. However, the divide between the topics they discuss and the language they use is still indisputable. A study that examined a million random Facebook status updates revealed that, while women are more prone to discuss personal subjects with individuals they know, men more often concentrate on sports, business, politics and religion Wang et al.
Moreover, the language women use while engaging on Facebook is generally warmer, friendlier, more polite and focused on other people, while men are usually socially distant and are more likely to use colder, hostile and authoritative language Schwartz et al. Some posts exemplify one category, but mostly we can identify multiple themes in any given post. Shooting or the use of any other type of weapon or domestic tool seems to be the most prevalent method, followed by using fire or letting migrants freeze to death.
The explanations, which were in most cases also apologies for unacceptable behaviour, were published on the Tumblrwhere they substituted the original posts and remain available online. One of the reasons why the removal of the posts was not pursued more widely might be because the was mostly unknown to the wider public at the time, and was closed down within days of gaining widespread attention.
They said that they had posted hateful comments because they were afraid for their families, their children and their way of life, which could all be disrupted when the migrants entered Slovenia.
Moreover, 2 many of the commentators argued that they posted their comments in the heat of the moment as a result of an instantaneous, reckless decision or wrong information provided by the media or, finally, 3 that they only realised that their posts crossed the line of hate speech when they were exposed by Zlovenija. One comment, for example, included all of the above:. Please delete my picture from the blacklist, since I kind of responded hastily with hate speech.
There are a lot of posts, some of which are true and some are false, which literally make you lose your nerves and you say a lot in the heat of the moment. I have 5 children and I am very scared for them. Please accept my request [to remove the FB post from Zlovenija]. One of the main legal principles lat. Similarly, a rational person is expected to understand that calling for the re-introduction of concentration camps, inciting murder, as well as using racist and xenophobic language is at least immoral if not illegal in a democratic society.
However, this argument may be understood through the prism of a wide freedom of expression generally enjoyed in Slovenia, on the one hand, and a lack of public discussion on the topic of hate speech on the other. Both were strengthened by fear and misunderstandings surrounding the migrant crisis, which may have given some individuals the courage to post inappropriate content online. Here, it is clear that the intention of the administrators of such groups was not to curb the spreading of hate speech online, but to protect its users and redirect them to use subtler but still offensive language.
As such, the impact of Zlovenija in mitigating online hate speech is evident. However, reasonable ambiguity surrounds the true intent behind the majority of them. The tone of some of the apologies leaves no doubt that the only reason for atoning is the promise of deleting their post from Zlovenija. Regardless, the rationale for introducing the mechanism was to give every exposed individual a chance to correct their wrongdoing, and the author s of Zlovenija never felt moral authority to judge on the sincerity of the apologies and substituted the post with an apology whenever someone decided to pursue the mechanism of removal ibid.
This was not the work of the same author s as the online campaign and the people responsible remain unidentified to this day. However, they seem to have been struck by the publicity brought by the posters across Ljubljana and were not prepared to deal with it, which ultimately led to the being shut down. All five analysed articles refrained from either condemning or praising the work of Zlovenija, but raised the question of whether or not it was appropriate to put individuals who spread hateful comments in an online pillory, in order to highlight the problem of hate speech cf.
Even the author s of the admitted that the method used was drastic, yet also emphasised that it should not be evaluated in isolation, but in a broader social context Zlovenija, The proliferation of online hate speech at the peak of the migrant crisis, coupled with the lack of response from the authorities, led to what they believed was an intolerable situation. Many members of the public agreed with, and even admired the objectives Zlovenija was trying to achieve. On the other hand, it was often condemned for being too extreme, and no better than the people it was trying to expose.
The National Radio Television Web Portal MMC reported that the of comments published for one news article related to migration exceeded the of comments they usually receive daily for all news FRA Update 2, Due to the unmanageable of comments that needed to be deleted because they either qualified as, or bordered on hate speech, the working process of the most frequently visited news websites in Slovenia www.
The majority of news websites followed this example and limited or disabled online comments on the news relating to migrants, including all articles related to Zlovenija. Even the topics that were originally created to comment on the phenomenon of Zlovenija in most cases quickly became preoccupied with other issues, and provided another platform to express negative and hateful comments. Firstly, the fear that repeatedly appeared in the apologies posted on Zlovenija was also one of the main topics discussed in the online fora.
However, as well as expressions of the fear of the migrants and the Islamisation of Slovenia and Europe as a whole, many users expressed concern about a society in which certain individuals freely express their wish to use gas chambers and burn people alive, and yearn for the return of Hitler or Stalin. The rumours led to the public exposure of a journalist working for the Slovenian newspaper Deloeven though she expressed her doubts about the methods Zlovenija used. An eye-catching Facebook post, which was reposted numerous times and includes a picture of the journalist accused of being the author of Zlovenija, re:.
She executed an actual attack on patriotic Slovenians, who care what is happening with Slovenia. I advise anyone that has been used to incite hatred by the owners and establishers of this web and whose pictures were published on this extremist web without their permission to and file a collective action. However, even the discourse on the topic of legality was extremely polarised: on the one hand the question of the legality of the original posts was raised and often accompanied by discussions about the in ability of the Slovenian criminal justice system to deal with hate speech.
Moreover, questions of legality surrounded the very existence of Zlovenija, i. In the following section, we first examine the legality of Zlovenija, and then turn to the question of the lawfulness of the hateful Facebook posts and the lack of prosecution of hate speech in Slovenian courts. Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,emphasis added. The courts in the US have continuously held that one cannot reasonably expect privacy with respect to the information revealed on public social media profiles.
Steelcase the court noted that:. Indeed, that is the very nature and purpose of these social networking sites, else they would cease to exist. Since plaintiff knew that her information may become publicly available, she cannot now claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Steelcase Inc. Estonia, In a case concerning the disclosure of personal data from the Internet Service Provider based on a dynamic IP address, the Court rejected the American reasoning that by knowingly exposing his online activity to the public, the applicant waived his expectation of privacy. On the contrary, when arguments in favour of finding a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Court reiterated the importance of the aforementioned online anonymity and continued:.
Slovenia, Iceland, sheds light on how the Court might weigh the right to privacy in cases when individuals publish content on open SNS profiles in the future. Referring to its case law, the Court stated that:. At the same time, the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press ibid.
Firstly, an individual is only a holder of the copyright of the content that he himself created. Only appearing on a photo or a video does not grant you copyright in that photo or video, since the owner of copyright is the author who created the work Copyright and Related Rights Act, Secondly, not all of the content posted on Facebook could be protected by intellectual property rights. Certain work is only recognised as copyright work, i. In order for a work to be protected by copyright, it must involve at least a minimum amount of creativity.
Names, titles, phrases or slogans are usually not protected under copyright, therefore a personal name used on Facebook does not enjoy copyright protection. In any event, the assessment of whether a photograph is copyright work or not has to be made on a case-by-case basis, and the possibility that some of the profile pictures reposted on Zlovenija infringed copyright cannot be excluded.Fuck and Slovenia
email: [email protected] - phone:(846) 195-2712 x 8107
Introducing Vigilant Audiences