If we observe the online media space of Montenegro, then we are without a dilemma in a dark period. While in the comments we count each other's teeth and kilograms, evaluate someone's aesthetic characteristics, judge before the court, slander and insult just because we do not agree with someone's point of view, then I am afraid that we have lost the battle for a decent society. The state remains silent on the increasingly pronounced hate speech and illegal content in readers' comments, but, as things stand now, it also wants to strengthen it institutionally with the new draft of the Media Act. It will not be that there are no mechanisms to fight this scourge, but rather that it is a question of serving the particular goals of those for whom clicks, and the profit it brings, are more important than the public interest.
In the labyrinth of current political circumstances and the development of digitalization of public space, freedom of expression has reached its peak in Montenegro. Anyone who thinks it's not good is wrong. However, this freedom is often abused by the new anonymous warriors for whom the online space is a battlefield and training ground for dealing with dissenters, which leads to the contamination of public communication. For the new admirals and generals of that twisted value system, who probably inherit such values outside the online world, the conditions on the ground suit them perfectly. There are no obstacles, and personal responsibility for illegal content does not exist, which opens up a wide field for cannon shots of hate speech and online violence. And let's be clear, this is not a phenomenon that started in August 2020, but much earlier, only in the last two years it has become even more down-to-earth and toxic.
The Center for Civic Education (CGO) has long been advocating that this issue be clearly recognized by law, with accompanying effective sanctions, which was ultimately defined by the current Media Act, which entered into force at the beginning of August 2020. The current solution in the Law reads: "The founder of an online publication is obliged to remove a comment that represents obviously illegal content, without delay, and no later than within 60 minutes of learning or receiving a report from another person that it represents illegal content."
In the recently published new draft of the Law on Media, Article 26 was corrected, so now the period for the founder of an online publication (portal) to remove a comment with illegal content is extended within eight hours, while the penal provisions for an offense against a legal entity in the amount of 1.000 to 8.000 euros euros if he does not remove the illegal comment remain the same. In its explanation, the Ministry of Culture and Media stated that the period of 60 minutes "is very short from the point of view of practice and effectiveness" and that "it is desirable that this period be longer, so that the online publication can more effectively approach the modeling of comments".
Deeply wrong. On the contrary, with the new draft of the Law, portals are given free rein to, as long as the text is current, generate comments of an illegal nature, which may bring readership and financial profit, but also degrades the credibility of that media (where it exists at all) and causes harm to many to individuals or groups that are the subject of the most mundane comments. It is also clear to the layman that the eight-hour period is too long because portals are precisely the medium that gives priority to quick reporting. Therefore, such a correction, and only after eight hours, renders the norm meaningless. More precisely, it is not to be expected that readers will open the same media content after it has lost its topicality and after readers have already seen comments of an offensive nature. The damage has been done, and the removal of comments after eight hours, when hardly anyone opens the text, means nothing to the injured party.
The lack of harmonized international practice on this basis is aggravating, but it must not be limiting. The argumentation of some representatives of the media community that they do not have enough financial or personnel capacity to react quickly is understandable. Unfortunately, the collapsed market has long ago turned a huge part of the media into financial strangleholds. However, for this reason, it would be more logical either to close the space for comments or to approach the comment pre-moderation model (insight into the comment, then its (un)publication) than to be a forum for the spread of toxic statements and fake news, without bearing no responsibility, while citizens remain without effective protection.
The practice of most portals in Montenegro is characterized by the so-called NTD procedure ("notice and takedown"), which implies the removal of illegal content upon knowledge, and is based on the European Union Directive on electronic commerce 2000/31.[1] However, it should be taken into context that the level of political culture in most EU member states is significantly more developed than in Montenegro.
Illegal content is solidly defined by Articles 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 of the Law on Media and refers to respect for the presumption of innocence, hate speech, protection of the integrity of children and minors, prohibited advertising of the sale and purchase of human organs, weapons, narcotic drugs, tobacco products, etc., protection of personal rights (injury of honor and reputation). During two waves of monitoring comments on portals, in March 2021 and in April 2022, the CGO research team analyzed a total of 47 comments, within 193 texts on 1240 portals for 11 days. The findings indicate that there were no portals that were free of comments with illegal content. In the context of Article 59 of the Law on Media, which prohibits discriminatory content or content with hate speech against a certain group, comments with hate speech on a national basis dominated, directed mostly at people of Montenegrin and Serbian nationality. Comments with hate speech on religious grounds were also noticeable, and there were no misogynistic comments, nor comments with hate speech against persons belonging to the LGBT population. Most violations of this article of the law were recorded on the In36S portal, which consciously ignores the media legislation of the state of Montenegro and refuses to be recorded.
The media law and investment in self-regulation must be the starting point and destination of every media activity. Unfortunately, the new draft of the Law on Media takes a step back and does not strengthen the regulatory framework, but practically relieves portals of responsibility in terms of investing in internal procedures and self-regulatory mechanisms. Just as we as individuals are responsible for what is on our personal platforms, the founders of online publications are responsible for what is on theirs. It is clearly prescribed by the domestic legislation, and it is similar with the legislation in the neighborhood. On October 1, 2021, the Croatian Parliament adopted a new Law on Electronic Media[2] where Article 94 states that the founder of a legal entity is responsible for content generated by registered users. Article 99 prescribes the penal policy in that part. If we also add that a part of the media refuses to be registered in accordance with domestic legislation, then we get a rounded frame that represents fertile ground for labeling without responsibility, for the spread of propaganda, fake news and misinformation. Investing in self-regulation and not avoiding responsibility can only contribute to improving the situation in this area.
It is worth pointing out good practices and media that understood the importance of comments on portals, and employed individuals who deal exclusively with their moderation. The largest and most visited portals have this particular responsibility. In October 2021, the CGO published the guide "Comments on portals - where are the limits?" intended specifically for moderators on portals to help them perform their work and resolve some of the dilemmas they face on a daily basis. Also, training was conducted for interested media and their moderators.
In the draft Law on Media, in the part related to supervision, it is necessary to introduce additional protection for those citizens who are considered harmed by comments on portals. In this particular case, it is necessary to determine an institution that would supervise the implementation of Article 26 of the law and to which citizens could turn in the event that the illegal content in the readers' comments was not deleted. This is the only way citizens' trust can grow, both in the media and in the competent institutions that would deal with this issue.
The neglect of civic education and media literacy in the formal education system has contributed to a sharp increase in online violence in which hardly anyone is spared. The Ministry of Culture and Media should put the public interest before the fight for clicks and for the already small marketing pie. One of the modalities is for smaller newsrooms and portals that do not have the capacity to fight against illegal content in readers' comments to introduce the concept of pre-moderation, or for the Ministry to help them with the development of software that can facilitate this process. Ethical and professional journalism always finds its way to readers regardless of the size of the newsroom. If a new solution is adopted, according to which illegal content in readers' comments must be removed only after eight hours, instead of the earlier 60 minutes, we can prepare for a new wave of pollution of public space and stronger hate speech compared to today, which will result in an even deeper polarization and rising tensions.
The author is a development coordinator at the Center for Civic Education (CGO).
The text is published on the portal of the Media Institute of Montenegro
Bonus video:
