Search results

The variable hate speech is an indicator used to describe communication that expresses and/or promotes hatred towards others (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Ziegele, Koehler, & Weber, 2018). A second element is that hate speech is directed against others on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political conviction (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Waseem & Hovy, 2016) and typically uses terms to denigrate, degrade and threaten others (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, & Martínez, 2015). Hate speech and incivility are often used synonymously as hateful speech is considered part of incivility (Ziegele et al., 2018). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Hate speech (see also incivility) has become an issue of growing concern both in public and academic discourses on user-generated online communication. References/combination with other methods of data collection: Hate speech is examined through content analysis and can be combined with comparative or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, & Chen, 2017; Rowe, 2015). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012). Example studies: Research question/research interest: Previous studies have been interested in the extent of hate speech in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic or discussions on a specific platform or different platforms in comparatively) (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Poole, Giraud, & Quincey, 2020; Waseem & Hovy, 2016). Object of analysis: Previous studies have investigated hate speech in user comments for example on news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) and social live streaming services (e.g. YouTube, YouNow). Level of analysis: Most manual content analysis studies measure hate speech on the level of a message, for ...

How high is the price of freedom of speech, and who exactly is paying for it? Hate speech is abusive, insulting, intimidating and harassing, it may lead to violence, hatred or discrimination, and it kills. Asks whether there are circumstances in which speech should be censored, or even criminalized, to protect the vulnerable, and looks at the role of the media in provoking the flight of Gypsies from Slovakia and the Czech Republic, hate radio in Rwanda, the Patriot militia movement's new language of hate in the USA, media hate speech in the former Yugoslavia, and the banning of revisionist Nazi history in Germany. Five articles.

Hate speech - communication that attacks a person or a group on the basis of identity factors, such as gender, race, or religion - is one of the main digital threats to democracy. Hate speech has manifold, empirically evidenced consequences for targeted individuals and groups experiencing systematic discrimination and for social cohesion as a whole. Yet, while the upheaval of social media has put the concept in the spotlight, such attention has also structurally transformed its meaning, turning hate speech from a concept with clear defining properties into a family resemblance comprising all kinds of online abuse. This process is far from causing only academic issues. It also sidesteps historical oppression as a defining property and as the reason for which one is targeted by hate speech. Thus, the process has been belittling public animosity against historically oppressed groups, reducing hate speech merely to a matter of offensive language on social media. This chapter shows how and why this conceptual change has taken place and the consequences it unleashes. It specifically addresses the problems of concept stretching, concept shrinking, and the inflation of concepts. Finally, it concludes that such conceptual issues jeopardize the potential that digital media research on hate speech has to provide guidance to a broad range of social actors.

What happens when two deeply held American values, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination, clash? In any well-established democratic society, people have the right to free speech as well as the right to equal treatment and protection under the law. But when one person's speech harms another person on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it may qualify as hate speech and be subject to restriction. Cortese argues that restricting hate speech does not violate the guiding principle behind the First Amendment, but he is not eager to see more lawsuits

From the sign code in Arab, Alabama, which regulates privately owned signs on private property: While trying to maintain content-neutrality, signs that contain vulgar, threatening, hate speech, lewd or indecent content are not permitted. I believe that should read "while not actually trying to maintain content-neutrality." Indeed, a prohibition on "vulgar" signs is unconstitutionally content-based…

On May 16th 2019, the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies (CASIS) Vancouver hosted Dr. Heidi Tworek at its roundtable meeting titled "Hate Speech in Canada: A New Democratic Threat Requiring Policy Incentives." Dr. Tworek is an Assistant Professor of International History at the University of British Columbia. She is also a non-resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and the Joint Centre for History and Economics at Harvard University. She works on the history of news and of international organizations. Alongside academic publications, she also writes about German and transatlantic politics and media for a wide variety of venues including Foreign Affairs and Wired magazine.

"While hate speech is nothing new, social media hate speech is relatively new; as new as social media. Hate speech on social media is different because social media has a number of qualities that make it uniquely suited to the spread of hateful messages"--