World in Paradox: Hate Speech vs. Speech Freedom
By Jing Guo
We are in the age of the Anthropocene. In the past three years, we have experienced problems like Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, the chaos in global politics, war, terrorism, the tension between digitalized life and loss of privacy, capitalism and working-class struggle, as well as the monopoly by Internet giants which penetrated to every aspect of our life. And unfortunately, we cannot see an end to any of these shadows in the coming years.
Our world is in a paradox, by which I refer to the tension between hatred and harmony as we are seeing the rise of hate speech, populism, and identity politics. The paradox also refers to the conflicts between human and nature, we can see the activity of environmentalists and the anti-environmentalists. By paradox, it also highlights the tension between the local and global, between the Global South and North which require us to think about social issues culturally and comparatively.
In the paradoxical world today, hate speech becomes a common occurrence on the Internet. Law scholar observes that the wide-spread hate speech on social media is the “generic term that has come to embrace the use of speech attacks based on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation or preference.”[1] Social media sites face the problem of identifying and censoring problematic posts while weighing the right to freedom of speech. Twitter is also facing the problem. Although it has been used to anti-racist ends, it has equally been accused of propagating everyday racism that ranges from the circulation of gifs and memes that perpetuate stereotypes with more strategic uses of humor to disguise racism and populism.
Hate speech is not a western dominated discourse. In Asia, countries like Indonesia, India, Myanmar, are all accused of propagating hate speech. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi applied hate speech in his election campaign with the support of social media, the same as Donald Trump, to target minorities and spread hate. Another typical kind of hate speech is commonly seen in East Asia, that is the nationalistic hate speech. For example, China’s state-run media, aided by online media, regularly incite hatred against Japan with alarming headlines, while right-wing media in Japan does the same thing towards China.
As discussed, hate speech is commonly seen around the world. But George C. (2017)[2] thinks that hate speech is only one side of the iceberg, and the term doesn’t really capture the full range of propaganda methods being used by intolerant groups. He developed the concept of “hate spin” as the two-pronged weapon and exposed the dirty political practice of using religious issues in discourse. If we think of hate speech as the giving of harmful offense, then this manufactured indignation amounts to strategic offense-taking. For example, Trump supporters give offense by hate speech saying that America should build the wall to defend the country against Muslims. At the same time, politicians may use an Islamic figure to take offense in order to gain public support.
Conventional hate speech is definitely ancient. Historians have shown how it facilitated the worst crimes that human groups have inflicted on one another – the dehumanizing discourse around slavery, for example, or the massacre of indigenous populations by colonists. The Internet has made things easier for hate spin agents. But the Internet is not an indispensable tool. Hate spin campaigns can and do take place without digital media. Agents have used satellite television, political rallies, places of worship, and word of mouth to spread hate.
Hate spin gives rise to discrimination, violence, and even genocide. The worst effects are found in non-democracies. In such countries, vulnerable communities that are targeted by hate spin can’t rely on courts and other institutions to protect their rights. But hate spin occurs in democracies as well. Democracies know they need to protect freedom of speech, which makes dealing with hate propaganda more challenging. It’s fair to say that genocides would not happen in liberal democracies, but they are certainly not immune to other types of injustice that hate spin fosters.
Religious hate spin is, of course, one of the most potent kinds and is easily to be used as political weapons. Bloggers became targets not because of their religious views, but due to their leading role in the mass protests over the on-going war crimes trials. Religious extremists became convenient tools of the political agenda to silence the movement. The progressive Pakistani human rights activist and social worker Sabeen Mahmud’s assassination probably had nothing to do with her secular views. She was almost certainly punished for hosting a discussion on Baluchistan, where security forces have been accused of human rights violations.
Certainly, it’s not always religious. In many societies, hate spin is of the racist or xenophobic variety. In East Asia, extreme nationalism is a huge source of intolerance, more than religion. Any marker of identity has potential if it can be exploited to draw a line between “us” and “them”. Therefore, the victims of hate spin could be religious or ethnic minorities, immigrants, or LGBTQs. There are also indirect victims: any citizen who prizes a plural democracy and a diverse society.
The hot-debated question remains as how to rescue democracy from hate spin. Although there is a somewhat dilemma between free speech and hate speech, even free speech advocates agree that hate speech requires special handling, especially when it is against minorities who are too weak to counter it. When the vilification incites violence, prohibition of the speech may be required. It causes censorship and further silencing of already-oppressed minorities.
George proposed that the law, politicians, civil society and media all play big roles. Hate speech may require public intervention, including, in some circumstances, legal prohibition. This principle is enshrined in international human rights law. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires states to prohibit incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. A second core principle, however, is that less is more – states should not overreach. They must not censor expressions that only offend people’s feelings, even if it insults their deeply held beliefs. This is also in line with international human rights law. Article 19 of the ICCPR protects freedom of expression.
Many states are too eager to restrict questionable speech, but they easily get co-opted by hardline groups. Combating the traditional approach, a more liberal approach is to promote social harmony through media and civil society. We have already seen that hate speech presents a major challenge to today’s journalism. Of course, journalists have been rightly alarmed at how rapidly hate-filled messages seep into, and often overwhelm, comment on the Internet. Less talked about is how journalists’ own professional procedures, including how news is defined, may amplify the voices of hate propagandists. Then there are the media outlets that purvey intolerance, serving as ideological spokesmen and cheerleaders for forces of hate. While journalists may agree in principle to avoid hate speech disseminating, however, there would still be disagreements over implementation.
In response, the Ethical Journalism Network launched the Turning the Page of Hate campaign in 2014 to mark the 20-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. It is a test developed by the Ethical Journalism Network and based on international standards, highlights questions in the gathering, preparation and dissemination of news and helps place what is said and who is saying it in an ethical context:
1. STATUS OF THE SPEAKER
How might their position influence their motives?
Should they even be listened to or just ignored?
2. REACH OF THE SPEECH
How far is the speech traveling?
Is there a pattern of behavior?
3. GOALS OF THE SPEECH
How does it benefit the speaker and their interests?
Is it deliberately intended to cause harm to others?
4. THE CONTENT ITSELF
Is the speech dangerous?
Could it incite violence towards others?
5. SURROUNDING CLIMATE – SOCIAL / ECONOMIC / POLITICAL
Who might be negatively affected?
Is there a history of conflict or discrimination?
DON’T SENSATIONALISE!
AVOID THE RUSH TO PUBLISH
TAKE A MOMENT OF REFLECTION
The effective journalistic intervention may require us to think social political issues comparatively and historically, taking the variables like history, culture, religion and politics into consideration and be alerted to any possible identity politics or commercialization of the social campaign. We are now in an era with human-induced war, global environmental change, neoliberal, consumer capitalism and the unprecedented flow of media, knowledge and communication. The world in paradox forces us to actively think of these problems, especially when it is a global phenomenon, or when it is a seemingly far existence from one’s own life.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9640858/
[2] George, C. (2017). Hate spin: The twin political strategies of religious incitement and offence-taking. Communication Theory, 27(2), 156-175.