Suchergebnisse

The popularization of social media as a forum for the expression of ideas and for political debate has increased in recent years the, always present, tension between freedom of expression and public control of offensive or dangerous speech. Many democratic states criminalise hate speech and other types of offensive expression, and now are social Media themselves that can exercise prior censorship over content on the basis of similar rules but much more restrictive and ambiguous. Combining normative analysis with empirical methodologies, this paper analyses, focusing on Spain, the implications that Criminal laws and "community guidelines" have on citizens' decisions to express themselves freely, which is fundamental for the configuration of a real democracy. It is made up of two studies: the first traces the evolution of judicial resolutions in Spain that prosecute possible crimes of terrorism and hate for political expression on social networks, as a result of the popularisation of these since 2014 in concurrence with a broad and ambiguous legislation. The results show a significant growth of state control over expressions that are essentially offensive but that, in most cases, do not represent a clear and present danger and could go beyond the doctrine of the ECHR. In the second part, an empirical study is carried out to analyse how the existence of hate speech crimes and social media rules affects the decision to express political ideas on social networks or to self-censor. The results show that a large part of the sample is self-censoring but that criminal law and content rules, in particular the severity of the law and the certainty that it is applied, do not have a direct effect on the decision to express ideas on the Internet, while the social perception of what others do is decisive. It is discussed how this calls into question the legitimacy of the evident limitation of freedom of expression of some crimes in Spain.

The popularization of social media as a forum for the expression of ideas and for political debate has increased in recent years the, always present, tension between freedom of expression and public control of offensive or dangerous speech. Many democratic states criminalise hate speech and other types of offensive expression, and now are social Media themselves that can exercise prior censorship over content on the basis of similar rules but much more restrictive and ambiguous. Combining normative analysis with empirical methodologies, this paper analyses, focusing on Spain, the implications that Criminal laws and "community guidelines" have on citizens' decisions to express themselves freely, which is fundamental for the configuration of a real democracy. It is made up of two studies: the first traces the evolution of judicial resolutions in Spain that prosecute possible crimes of terrorism and hate for political expression on social networks, as a result of the popularisation of these since 2014 in concurrence with a broad and ambiguous legislation. The results show a significant growth of state control over expressions that are essentially offensive but that, in most cases, do not represent a clear and present danger and could go beyond the doctrine of the ECHR. In the second part, an empirical study is carried out to analyse how the existence of hate speech crimes and social media rules affects the decision to express political ideas on social networks or to self-censor. The results show that a large part of the sample is self-censoring but that criminal law and content rules, in particular the severity of the law and the certainty that it is applied, do not have a direct effect on the decision to express ideas on the Internet, while the social perception of what others do is decisive. It is discussed how this calls into question the legitimacy of the evident limitation of freedom of expression of some crimes in Spain

Political speech offences as defined in the Spanish Penal Code have made criminal scholars particularly uncomfortable since online social networks became popular and the number of users convicted by Spanish courts has increased. In this context, both ethical criticisms about their criminalization and those about the possible perverse effects of the criminal sanction have intensified. This study empirically analyses, in a sample of four hundred people, the defiance effect that can occur in the field of speech offences on social networks. The results suggest that participants would challenge the criminal law if they were convinced of these ideas, would tend to reoffend if sentenced, and would support a demonstration for decriminalization. ; Los delitos de expresión política tipificados en el Código Penal español han incomodado especialmente a la doctrina penal desde que se popularizaron las redes sociales en línea y aumentaron las personas usuarias condenadas por los tribunales españoles. En este contexto, se han intensificado tanto las críticas éticas sobre su criminalización, como aquellas sobre los posibles efectos perversos de la sanción penal. El presente estudio analiza empíricamente, en una muestra de cuatrocientas personas, el efecto desafío que se puede producir en el ámbito de los delitos de expresión en redes sociales. Los resultados apuntan a que los participantes desafiarían a la norma penal si estuvieran convencidos de esas ideas, tenderían a la reincidencia en caso de imposición de una pena y apoyarían una manifestación para su descriminalización.

Crime research has grown substantially over the past decade, with a rise in evidence-informed approaches to criminal justice, statistics-driven decision-making and predictive analytics. The fuel that has driven this growth is data – and one of its most pressing challenges - is the lack of research on the use and interpretation of data sources. This accessible, engaging book closes that gap for researchers, practitioners and students. International researchers and crime analysts discuss the strengths, perils and opportunities of the data sources and tools now available and their best use in informing sound public policy and criminal justice practice