The article stopped just when it was about to become really interesting. I, personally, miss answers to the following questions:
- How do you define hate speech in a legally watertight manner to begin with?
- Who is to be the interpreter of these laws? Facebook?
- Who shall cover the cost of their implementation?
- Where can a convicted offender appeal the verdict?
I don’t think it is a realistic option to expect from social networks to police speech on their platforms over and above what their immediate business interests require anyway. Because the costs of such a policy would not be compensated by an increase in revenue, and hence would be an act of charity to the public. But the thing is, enterprises are not charities, but enterprises.
And in case you want to make it a law for social networks to police speech on their sites, you are back at the first question: to make possible a check for compliance on the side of the social networks, these laws have to be watertight. And then, you can forget about fuzzy borders.
Sorry, but I am not convinced that making laws or regulation is the right way to deal with hate speech.