View previous stories
	How companies are using law suits to silence environmental activists by Otto Saki Ford Foundation South Africa   June 2017   According to the most recent Front Line Defenders Annual Report on Human Rights Defenders at Risk, around the world 281 activists were targeted and killed in 2016. At least 136 of them were environmental rights activists.   While extrajudicial killings like these attract immediate condemnation, corporate interests are using other, less obviously violent means to undermine the important work of these activists: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are used to intimidate, harass, and silence activists who are working to expose corporate injustices and human rights violations.   As intended, such lawsuits have a clear chilling effect on activism, silencing critical voices and stifling accountability.   Of particular concern is the recent SLAPP suit against the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), an environmental rights group in South Africa. CER helps communities hold businesses accountable for perpetrating natural resource exploitation.   An Australian company filed a defamation suit against CER lawyers and a community activist for statements they allegedly made during a presentation at University of Cape Town, statements the company claims were defamatory.   The local community had strenuously opposed the company’s proposal to exploit the mineral sands mine on South Africa’s West Coast.   The South African Constitution provides for the application of rights and responsibilities, meaning private actors are equally liable for failure to observe the bill of rights. This principle is enshrined in international norms and considered essential for protecting and respecting people’s rights, and remedying affronts to those rights.   But the playing field is not equal. While there are strong laws aimed at protecting people’s rights, those laws too often fail to be applied. At the same time, big businesses have amassed great power and influence; they are armed literally and figuratively with high-value law firms, auditors, security experts, and investigators to defend their interests.   Facing that kind of arsenal, it is difficult for individuals and organizations to fight back.   The use of SLAPP suits in South Africa is becoming a trend. Whether the company wins or loses, CER shoulders major expenses in defending themselves against a lawsuit that they see as being without merit, constituting avoidance for accountability.   Too often, when large companies like these are pressed to account for environmental damage and violations, they resort to SLAPP suits and point to their corporate social responsibility ventures to distract from the harm they are accused of perpetrating.   Different jurisdictions have responded differently to these cases. The United States has outlawed these suits. As one judge presiding over a SLAPP suit observed, “The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so...The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism.”   As a country founded on constitutional values, South Africa gives environmental activists the option to leverage the constitution as a defense against these suits. But to effectively push back against these burdensome legal challenges, organizations need other ways to make corporate interests face the political, social, and economic costs of masking their violations under the guise of reputational damage.   First, South Africa needs to revise court procedures to make it easier for judges to scrutinize frivolous lawsuits without dragging the defendants into court. Second, civil society must recognize that SLAPP lawsuits are not isolated, but are part of a broad and purposeful strategy to distract and disable environmental activists and empower corporate interests.   Where possible, activists should draw attention to these companies’ actions in their countries of origin, so that shareholders can see the (perhaps unintended) impact of their investments.   Social justice activists are operating under challenging circumstances everywhere in the world, putting them at risk of SLAPP suits. With these activists and their organizations already under significant pressure—subjected to slander, suspicion, criminalization, and financial strain; and forced to justify their work and very existence—protracted SLAPP suits are designed to erode their resources and commitment.   As philanthropy considers how to best support and build resilience for social justice activists and institutions, it is critical to consider their ability to withstand this kind of legal pressure. In times of crisis, organizations often turn to emergency response funds, but these funds are overwhelmed.   As funders, we need to have open conversations with our grantees about how they can be prepared before a crisis erupts.   Are we providing enough support to our partners to be able to create a litigation fund or to shore up institutional reserves? Do they have legal insurance? Is there an adequate pool of pro bono law firms that can provide assistance to social justice and environmental groups? And how can philanthropy use its influence in corporate circles to encourage better practice?   Advocates and activists may always be vulnerable when facing big businesses with deep pockets and seemingly bottomless profits, but they don’t have to be unprepared for the challenge. Visit the related web page
	German Parliament passes law to fine social media companies for not deleting hate speech by Deutsche Welle, agencies Germany   June 2017   German lawmakers have approved a law that would impose high fines on social media companies like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube for failing to swiftly delete posts deemed to exhibit hate speech.   Under the new legislation, social media companies have 24 hours to remove posts that obviously violate German law and have been reported by other users. In cases that are more ambiguous, Facebook and other sites have seven days to deal with the offending post. If they don''t comply with the new legislation, the companies could face a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57.1 million).   The law was passed with votes from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) - Social Democratic Party (SPD) government coalition. The Left Party in the Bundestag voted against it, while members of the Greens abstained.   The new rules are supposed to drastically reduce the number of posts containing hate speech, fake news and terror propaganda on social media. In January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90 percent of hate speech videos reported by users - but Twitter only deleted one percent. Facebook did a little better at 39 percent.   "We do not accept the fact that companies in Germany do not adhere to the law," Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) told public broadcaster ARD in April, explaining why the new legislation was necessary.   Skeptics criticize, however, that under the new rules social media managers are the ones who have to decide whether content complies with German law. They also worry that freedom of speech will suffer since, in their opinion, companies are likely to delete many posts just to be on the safe side and avoid fines.   Maas said the new law didn''t curb freedom of speech but was rather a prerequisite for it. To counter the criticism, the legislation also stipulates the establishment of an independent regulatory institution to which Facebook and other sites can pass on content when they''re not sure whether it should be deleted. Investigators there will then make the final decision.   In addition to the strict new rules about deletion, the law forces networks to reveal the identity of those behind the hateful posts and to offer users "an easily recognizable, directly reachable, and constantly available" complaint process for "prosecutable content," which includes libel, slander, defamation, incitement to commit a crime, hate speech against a particular social group, and threats.   Germany is the first country in Europe to introduce such clear legal guidelines against online hate speech.   * On the rise of online hate speech, A. E. Elliott writes from Berlin. (Open Democracy)   2016 was one of the worst years for online hate speech, a year when neo-fascists overwhelmed the comments sections of many online forums. Members of the alt-right took popular platforms like Disqus, Facebook and Twitter by storm, flooding them with hateful posts. They attempted to reshape the debate on a wide range of issues including Brexit, Trump, immigration and Islam: http://bit.ly/2x895wn   http://theconversation.com/regulate-social-media-platforms-before-its-too-late-86984 Visit the related web page
	View more stories