Network Enforcement Act
The Network Enforcement Act (, NetzDG; ), also known as the Facebook Act (), is a German law aimed at combating hate speech and fake news in social networks. The Act obligates social media platforms with over 2 million users to remove "clearly illegal" content within 24 hours and all illegal content within 7 days of it being posted, or face a maximum fine of 50 million Euros. The deleted content must be stored for at least 10 weeks afterwards, and platforms must submit transparency reports on dealing with illegal content every six months. It was passed by the Bundestag  in June 2017 and took full effect in January 2018. However, the law has been criticised for incentivising social media platforms to pre-emptively censor valid and lawful expression, and making them the arbiter of what constitutes free expression. Background. In 2015, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection set up a working group on the handling of criminal content in social networks. Some networks made voluntary commitments, but the ministry considered them insufficient. Justice Minister Heiko Maas argued that an evaluation of legal practice in the deletion of criminal content in social networks by "jugendschutz.net" in early 2017  revealed that deletions of hateful comments were insufficient, and he called for further increased pressure on social networks. To make companies more accountable, he considered that legal regulations were needed. Although 90 percent of the punishable content was deleted on YouTube, it was only 39 percent on Facebook and only 1 percent on Twitter. Drafting and enactment. On May 16, 2017, the government parties CDU/CSU and SPD introduced the bill to the Bundestag. According to the federal government, social networks would be forced to remove hate speech more consistently. The maximum penalty for a failure to abide by the  law would be 50 million Euros. The draft law referred to commercial social networks on the Internet with at least 2 million members, not to journalistically- and editorially-designed services (§ 1 NetzDG). Providers must establish a transparent procedure for dealing with complaints about illegal content (§ 3 NetzDG) and are subject to a reporting and documentation obligation (§ 2 NetzDG). They must check complaints immediately, delete "obviously illegal" content within 24 hours, delete any illegal content within 7 days it has been checked and block access to it. Complainants and users must be informed immediately of the decisions taken. The deleted content  must be stored for at least ten weeks for evidence purposes. Violations are considered administrative offences for which sensitive fines of up to 5 million euros are provided (§ 4 NetzDG). In addition, providers must provide a service agent in Germany both to the authorities and for civil proceedings (§ 5 NetzDG). Social networks are expected to submit a report every six months on the complaints that have been received and how they have been dealt with. However, the first reading on May 19 showed that the draft was controversial within the CDU/CSU and SPD. Representatives of the CDU/CSU and  the SPD parliamentary groups made changes to the draft. The Bundestag passed the amended draft on 30 June 2017 with most votes of the government factions against the votes of the Left and the CSU, with the abstention of Alliance 90/The Greens. Criticism. According to the Federal government of Germany, the law is necessary to combat an increasing spread of hate speech online, as well as defamation and fake news. Such content may radicalise individuals, and "the internet shapes the culture of debate and the overall social climate" in Germany. Previous attempts to raise awareness and set voluntary commitments  for platforms have had limited success. However, various aspects of the law have been criticised by multiple interest groups. Journalist groups. Reporters Without Borders claimed the Act could "massively damage the basic rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression." The Committee to Protect Journalists' Courtney Radsch warned that the law would risk privatizing censorship. The Oxford Internet Institute warned that the law may heavily restrict freedom of expression and Internet freedom. United Nations. In June 2017, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Protection of Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye, criticised the planned regulations in  a statement to the federal government. He considered that some parts of the draft law would be incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He raised the following concerns: Kaye also expressed concerns that "violative content" and its associated user information would have to be stored on private servers and could be accessed by court orders, which may undermine the right to anonymous expression. Furthermore, the Act would burden private companies with protecting the privacy and security of large amounts of private data. European Community. Experts argue that the while the law likely does not violate freedom  of expression as enumerated in Article 5 of German Basic Law, it likely violates it as described in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states the following: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such  formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." The Network Enforcement Act incentivizes over-blocking, because it allows citizens and tech companies to make judgement on questionable speech immediately by blocking it within 24 hours, instead of  allowing it to propagate or cause harm while waiting for a court's decision. This necessity of speed in removal makes it difficult for people posting such content to have due process in determining the content's legality. Over-blocking could be a violation of Article 10 because there is potential to block speech that is lawful. Some scholars say that prioritizing Germany's laws over EU regulations while legislating on this subject of increasing importance is a mistake, and that the EU should be the one to legislate in such realms, especially since the internet is such an international  place. Counter Extremism Project - CEPS Report. In 2018, the advocacy group Counter Extremism Project published a joint report with the think tank Centre for European Policy Studies analysing the effects of the Network Enforcement Act. The authors found that the law has not resulted in excessive blocking of content or censorship. However, the authors concluded it "remains uncertain whether NetzDG has achieved significant results in reaching its stated goal of preventing hate speech" as some platforms did not strictly comply with the requirements. Impacts. Facebook fine for underreporting complaints. In July 2019, Facebook was fined 2 million Euros by Germany 's Federal Office of Justice for under-reporting complaints about illegal content. According to Germany's Federal Office of Justice, Facebook did not include user reports that posts violated community standards. However, Facebook claimed that aspects of the law "lacked clarity" and it did comply with mandatory reporting requirements. Facebook has criticised the draft law. In a statement sent to the German Bundestag at the end of May 2017, the company stated: "The constitutional state must not pass on its own shortcomings and responsibility to private companies. Preventing and combating hate speech and false reports is a public task from  which the state must not escape". In its statement, Facebook claimed "The amount of the fines is disproportionate to the sanctioned behaviour".