50 No. 59 JUSTICE Doron Rabinovici: One Cannot Forgive the Jew for What Has Been Done to Him Secondary antisemitism, i.e. the denial of crimes, reversal of the roles of victims and perpetrators – the term “new antisemitism” refers to consistencies and discontinuities at the same time. Author Doron Rabinovici: the judicial system provides the framework to advance substantive clarification according to certain rules in each individual case. (…) The civic public is noticeably being replaced by socially separated forums. The media of editorial responsibility are under general suspicion. No common visions, but particular conspiracy theories are becoming the common denominator. It is the social digital private companies that set their own rules, while being mainly subject to the logic of profit. Digital communication is particularistic, and at the same time it is globally linked. It is not secure knowledge but the sensational confirmation of personal prejudices that is virally distributed. Therefore, this is about the defense of democratic institutions and a pluralistic society. The judicial system is needed as a place of regulated negotiations. As a place of republican democratic authority. Perhaps the mere defense of minimum standards of civilization is no longer enough. We have to regain the territory of the public sphere, otherwise we will be overrun by the advance of authoritarian populists. Understanding the Mechanisms of Online Communication The finding of journalist Ingrid Brodnig: “anonymity and invisibility make Facebook the new gateway for antisemitism.” This social media expert has analyzed the communication behavior of several (relevant) Facebook groups on the occasion of the conference and, using the terminology of the American psychologist John Suler, speaks of “online disinhibition.” “You do not have to look the victim in the eye and communication can take place non-simultaneously.” The alarming numbers presented by Yogev Karasenty, Director of the Forum against Antisemitism at the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, caused a stir among the audience: on average, a hate posting on the web currently reaches approximately 3,000 people via "likes" and retweets, which indicates a tremendous multiplier effect. A qualitative glance at the postings in the German-speaking world showed that these postings were often written in poor linguistic quality. “Facebook, Twitter and Co. claim to have adopted the condemnation of hate speech as their company policy. However, this is not reflected in their behavior regarding the deletions of postings,” the expert of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs criticizes. As a strategy, Yogev Karasenty suggested global regulation (“geo blocking policy”) and corresponding wording in the laws on the national level. IT companies should also be held accountable more than is now the case. In this context, Irit Kohn, IAJLJ President, pointed out the Israeli expertise regarding the combating of antisemitism and hate crimes on the internet. “In Israel, there is intensive research on antisemitism and hate crimes on the internet, this experience is virtually predestined for a transfer of knowledge. This is why we try to invite delegations to Israel. IAJLJ considers itself, in particular regarding the issue of antisemitism and hate crime, as an intermediary in the service of humanity and the rapprochement of cultures.” Enforcing One’s Rights as a Victim Julia Andras and Kevin Barrett, both legal experts at the law firm Lansky, Ganzger & Partner, specialize in hate crime on the internet, and locate immense adjustment requirements regarding the rights of victims. The legislator may have reacted to the current developments, e.g. that relevant suspect notifications have doubled within only three years, and has established a publicity threshold of 30 persons. Still, the victims of hate crimes often lack the possibility to fight these crimes effectively. For example, the Jewish Community is not treated as a party in current proceedings regarding hate crimes on the internet. Lawyer Julia Andras sketched the current problems lawyers must face when combating hate crimes. The Public Prosecutor’s Office in Vienna (Staatsanwaltschaft Wien) would often decide not to pursue actions that were unambiguously criminal offenses and to stop the proceedings, with the argument that “the perpetrator could not be found.” “Photos and videos of Nazi salutes are recorded at FPÖ election rallies and then published. However, due to not being admissible as a party, one has no influence on the further proceedings,” the lawyer complained about the status quo. Contrary to what is the case in criminal proceedings, victims can assert their own rights very quickly in civil proceedings and “turn off” hate postings, the media lawyer Gerald Ganzger added. “This is enforced by a coercive penalty, which can amount to up to EUR 100,000 per day. This is a hard blow even for large companies. Of course, the right to free speech must be protected when fighting hate speech. Therefore, the two basic rights must be weighed carefully in each individual case,” says Gerald Ganzger.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=