DOCSLIB.ORG

Online Hate Speech

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Online Hate Speech ONLINE HATE SPEECH ISSUE WINTER 2013 WWW.IGLYO.COM23 Online Hate Speech v1.indd 1 08/01/2014 12:56 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 A NO HatE SPEECH ONLINE ACTIVist’S CONFEssion 2 YOUTH WITHOUT FRONTIERS 6 ILLUSTRATED SEction: What IS HatE SPEECH? 8 THE NO HatE SPEECH MOVEMENT – A CAMPAIGN FOR YOU 16 GREY AREAS: TEnsions BETWEEN ProtEction FROM hatE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT to FREEDOM OF SPEECH ? 20 Project Co-ordinators Jenn Byrne and Jordan Long Contributors Eirik Rise, Marta Gianello Guida, Aileen Donegan and Jordan Long This publication is published with support of the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity PROGRESS (2007-2013), Illustrated section the Council of Europe European Youth Foundation and the Government of Rosa Devine www.rosadevine.com the Netherlands. The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect Design the position or opinion of the European Commission, Council of Europe www.haiwyre.com or the Government of the Netherlands. Online Hate Speech v1.indd 2 08/01/2014 12:56 INTRODUCTION 1 Hate speech. It is in the name: hate. Hate is a This issue of IGLYO On Online Hate Speech powerful force; it is strong and can be contagious, seeks to explore the concept of hate speech like a disease. Passed from generation to in relation to freedom of speech. We also generation or from population to population, hate introduce our readers to the existing situations is something that spreads easily if left unchecked. and campaigns at a wider European context as represented in the Council of Europe’s No Hate Hate speech’s online aspect is no exception. In Speech Movement and at a smaller national and fact, it is arguably worse. Online hate speech regional scale in Norway and Turin, Italy. experiences less censure or opposition than hate speech in the public sphere. It also benefits from the availability of online anonymity and transnational interactions. People can and will Hate Speech is not say hateful things online that they would never express in public, and its reach and consequences something to be tolerated are wider. Young LGBTQ individuals, particularly but to be combated. And those who are subject to multiple forms of we have the tools to do discrimination, are particularly vulnerable to hate just that. speech that targets them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Hate Speech is not something to be tolerated Here at IGLYO, with our member organisations but to be combated. And we, as individuals and and partners, we are determined to join in organisations, have the tools to do just that. the fight against online hate speech. We work So join us and speak up and speak out against towards tackling the root causes of hate speech online hate speech. in an attempt to ensure that no one feels Yours in solidarity against hate, victimised or driven to extreme measures because of hateful discourse. Jenn Byrne Junior Communications and For the first time ever, IGLYO uses the medium Policy Officer Intern of an illustrated narrative to present some of the key aspects of online hate speech. Online Hate Speech v1.indd 3 08/01/2014 12:56 A NO Hate SPEECH ONLINE ACTIVist’S CONFession EIRIK RISE, SKEIV UNGDOM NORWAY The search for hate and members of vulnerable groups targets of their I must admit, when I first heard of the No Hate intolerance. Speech campaign, my internal response was: I left them there, alone in their hate. The words What? We don’t have that issue here in Norway, they wrote still were not the hate speech for not really. Maybe in other countries. I’ve never which I had been searching. It was the hate seen any of this hate speech. We don’t have a speech that made people stop reading the human rights issue. We hardly mention human comment field, the meaningless intolerance rights in a national context. And we don’t learn that drew the focus away from real debate and about them in school. Human right violations made the interaction space of the internet into don’t happen in Norway. So why would be need a an unattractive desert. The content they spread campaign against Hate Speech? Out of solidarity? was bad, no question about it. But it wasn’t worth Despite those initial reservations, I wanted to give sticking your hands into it- let alone the law. it a chance. I started my own quest in identifying I kept following the public debate, the words of what hate speech is in a Norwegian national populist politicians, online haters, but I couldn’t context. Is it about online bullying? Is it about the find any big monsters worth fighting—just the echo chambers of radicalization and extremism? well-accepted, every-day racism and intolerance About young people travelling to the middle east targeted towards everything and anything from to do holy war? About Anders Bering Breivik, the asylum seekers to Roma and LGBTQ people. The terrorist? Public discourse already labelled hate price you had to pay for freedom of speech. But speech as mandatory political correctness. Was what is freedom of speech? there any hate speech in Norway? How could we recognize it? Democracy in a free nation Next year is the year of the 200-year anniversary As I started searching for hate speech, I read the for the Norwegian constitution. In 1814 the comment fields of online newspaper, looking for “founding fathers” of Norway sat down and wrote what could be trigger words. I was almost hoping one of the then most modern constitutions in the to find some loose canon, some wild extremist world. A constitution that even today still brings opinions so far out of control that it would go fascination and respect. Each paragraph could be under hate speech legislation and had to be a source for hours of studies. What few remember stopped, once and for all. Haters needed to be is that when it came in 1814, it stated that “Jews gone: let’s out the trolls and fight them bravely. are still not allowed into the Norwegian kingdom”. But the result was scarce. The ones I found were This text stayed unchanged for over 40 years. lonely wolfs, hunting in packs of one, perhaps How can a democracy be built on the two. People with a lot of hateful opinions, a lot of discrimination and exclusion of others? How can free time, and who felt like their opinion should one of the most renowned democracies in the triumph over the ones of other. They took pride world have a hateful constitution? in rejecting the identity and values of minorities Online Hate Speech v1.indd 4 08/01/2014 12:56 2-3 The last time I read about Roma people in a where you can embrace diversity. In my work, Norwegian context, it was about police breaking I’ve observed some taboos that still exist within up Roma-settlements and a suggestion of human rights; not everyone is in included in the reintroducing a ban on begging. The newspapers conversation, even in 2013. But what is counted wrote about the “Roma-problem” that needed a as a taboo is different from country to country. solution. In the 1990s Czech president Vaclav LGBTQ rights are a prime example. In Norwegian Havel once described the treatment of the society and public discourse, sexual orientation Roma as “a litmus test for democracy”. How can and gender identity are given respect and papers and media speak about a group of human much consideration. To use the language of beings as a problem? Politicians follow not far international law, Norway mainstreams LGBT after, underlining the problem of Roma people rights into the human rights discourse. Many in Norway. Could this be that stone I had been people take pride in our nation as a front fighter looking for; was this discourse hate speech? for human rights, bringing the values to countries that don’t respect fundamental rights and freedoms. And done in the right way, supporting the grassroots movement working for human Saying no to hate speech rights for LGBT people, this is a great thing. is saying yes free speech. But when it is overshadowing our own human It is about creating a space rights issues, taking away the focus from the rights of Roma people, the disabled, asylum for open debate where seekers, immigrants, or religious minorities, then everyone can contribute. it becomes a threat to true equality. Human rights are for all, not for one- or one group. You can’t pick your favorites and leave the rest. Saying no to hate speech is saying yes free A world of discrimination speech. It is about creating a space for open A definition, intersectionality: Seeing the way debate where everyone can contribute. As Council different types of discrimination interlink and of Europe’s Director General says it – “hate speech how multiple identities can lead to multiple is the dark side of democracy”. The public debate discrimination. For instance, consider a person that feeds on hate is destroying democracy. in a wheelchair who is also queer. Risking both We don’t have real debates, we have parties discrimination from both “camps”, and not fitting struggling of how to win the haters over to their into either, or mainstream society. side. Why aren’t politicians taking responsibility? A campaign of possibilities The No Hate Speech campaign is that it is a place Continued over Online Hate Speech v1.indd 5 08/01/2014 12:56 Continued from previous Removing discrimination from its various boxes society, for what is Norwegian, for what is and placing the various types next to each other reasonable, the love for truth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 Issue 7 Article 6 10-30-2019 Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World Lauren E. Beausoleil Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren E. Beausoleil, Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 2100 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss7/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE, HATEFUL, AND POSTED: RETHINKING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF HATE SPEECH IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Abstract: Speech is meant to be heard, and social media allows for exaggeration of that fact by providing a powerful means of dissemination of speech while also dis- torting one’s perception of the reach and acceptance of that speech. Engagement in online “hate speech” can interact with the unique characteristics of the Internet to influence users’ psychological processing in ways that promote violence and rein- force hateful sentiments. Because hate speech does not squarely fall within any of the categories excluded from First Amendment protection, the United States’ stance on hate speech is unique in that it protects it.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar
    Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar October 2020 About Us This report was written based on the information and data collection, monitoring, analytical insights and experiences with hate speech by civil society organizations working to reduce and/or directly af- fected by hate speech. The research for the report was coordinated by Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) and Progressive Voice and written with the assistance of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School while it is co-authored by a total 19 organizations. Jointly published by: 1. Action Committee for Democracy Development 2. Athan (Freedom of Expression Activist Organization) 3. Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) 4. Generation Wave 5. International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School 6. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand 7. Karen Human Rights Group 8. Mandalay Community Center 9. Myanmar Cultural Research Society 10. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) 11. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica 12. Olive Organization 13. Pace on Peaceful Pluralism 14. Pon Yate 15. Progressive Voice 16. Reliable Organization 17. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization 18. Ta’ang Women’s Organization 19. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar (Peace Seekers and Multiculturalist Movement) Contact Information Progressive Voice [email protected] www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org Burma Monitor [email protected] International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School [email protected] https://hrp.law.harvard.edu Acknowledgments Firstly and most importantly, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the activists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and commu- nity-based organizations that provided their valuable time, information, data, in- sights, and analysis for this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting White Supremacist Hate Speech Using Domain Specific
    Detecting White Supremacist Hate Speech using Domain Specific Word Embedding with Deep Learning and BERT Hind Saleh, Areej Alhothali, Kawthar Moria Department of Computer Science, King Abdulaziz University,KSA, [email protected].,aalhothali,[email protected] Abstract White supremacists embrace a radical ideology that considers white people su- perior to people of other races. The critical influence of these groups is no longer limited to social media; they also have a significant effect on society in many ways by promoting racial hatred and violence. White supremacist hate speech is one of the most recently observed harmful content on social media. Traditional channels of reporting hate speech have proved inadequate due to the tremendous explosion of information, and therefore, it is necessary to find an automatic way to detect such speech in a timely manner. This research inves- tigates the viability of automatically detecting white supremacist hate speech on Twitter by using deep learning and natural language processing techniques. Through our experiments, we used two approaches, the first approach is by using domain-specific embeddings which are extracted from white supremacist corpus in order to catch the meaning of this white supremacist slang with bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) deep learning model, this approach reached arXiv:2010.00357v1 [cs.CL] 1 Oct 2020 a 0.74890 F1-score. The second approach is by using the one of the most re- cent language model which is BERT, BERT model provides the state of the art of most NLP tasks. It reached to a 0.79605 F1-score. Both approaches are tested on a balanced dataset given that our experiments were based on textual data only.
    [Show full text]
  • How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey?
    IJCJ&SD 9(4) 2020 ISSN 2202-8005 Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred: How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey? Barbara Perry University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Davut Akca University of Saskatchewan, Canada Fatih Karakus University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Mehmet F Bastug Lakehead University, Canada Abstract Hate crimes against dissident groups are on the rise in Turkey, and political hate speech might have a triggering effect on this trend. In this study, the relationship between political hate speech against the Gulen Movement and the hate crimes perpetrated by ordinary people was examined through semi-structured interviews and surveys with victims. The findings suggest that a rise in political hate rhetoric targeting a given group might result in a corresponding rise in hate crimes committed against them, the effects of which have been largely overlooked in the current literature in the evolving Turkish context. Keywords Political hate speech; hate crimes; doing difference; group libel. Please cite this article as: Perry B, Akca D, Karakus F and Bastug MF (2020) Planting hate speech to harvest hatred: How does political hate speech fuel hate crimes in Turkey? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 9(4): 195-211. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i4.1514 Except where otherwise noted, content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. As an open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution. ISSN: 2202-8005 © The Author(s) 2020 Barbara Perry, Davut Akca, Fatih Karakus, Mehmet F Bastug: Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred Introduction Hate speech used by some politicians against certain ethnic, religious, or political groups has in recent years become part of an increasing number of political campaigns and rhetoric (Amnesty International 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Online Hate Speech: Hate Or Crime?
    ELSA International Online Hate Speech Competition Participant 039 Liina Laanpere, Estonia Online Hate Speech: Hate or Crime? Legal issues in the virtual world - Who is responsible for online hate speech and what legislation exists that can be applied to react, counter or punish forms of hate speech online? List of Abbreviations ACHPR – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ACHPR – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights CERD – Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights EU – European Union ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ISP – Internet service providers OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe UDHR – Universal Declaration on Human Rights UN – United Nations Introduction “Do offensive neo-Nazi skinheads have the right to propagate their odious ideology via the internet?” That question was posed by the representative of United States Mission to the OSCE in her statement at the Conference on Hate Speech. The first answer that probably pops into many minds would be “no way”. However, the speech continues: “Our courts have answered that they do. Does a person have the right to publish potentially offensive material that can be viewed by millions of people? Here again, the answer is of course.”1 That is an example of the fact that the issue of hate speech regulation is by no means black and white. Free speech is a vital human right, it is the cornerstone of any democracy. So any kind of restrictions on free speech must remain an exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media.Edited by Anna Everett
    Citation: Daniels, Jessie. “Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media.Edited by Anna Everett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 129–154. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262550673.129 Copyright: c 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Unported 3.0 license. Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era Jessie Daniels City University of New York—Hunter College, Urban Public Health and Sociology Introduction The emergence of the digital era has had unintended consequences for race, civil rights, and hate speech. The notion prevalent in the early days of new media, either that race does not exist on the Internet or that cyberspace represents some sort of halcyon realm of “colorblindness,” is a myth. At the same time MCI was airing its infamous commercial proclaiming “there is no race” on the Internet,1 some were already practiced at adapting white supremacy to the new online environment, creating Web sites that showcase hate speech along with more sophisticated Web sites that intentionally disguise their hateful purpose. Yet, there has been relatively little academic attention focused on racism in cyberspace.2 Here I take up the issue of racism and white supremacy online with the goal of offering a more nuanced understanding of both racism and digital media, particularly as they relate to youth. Specifically, I address two broad categories of white supremacy online: (1) overt hate Web sites that target individuals or groups, showcase racist propaganda, or offer online community for white supremacists; and (2) cloaked Web sites that intentionally seek to deceive the casual Web user.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Electoral Integrity in the Digital Age
    PROTECTING ELECTORAL INTEGRITY IN THE DIGITAL AGE The Report of the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age ................. 1 VII. Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................. 91 Building Capacity ...................................................................................................................... 91 Members of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 5 Building Norms ......................................................................................................................... 93 Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Action by Public Authorities ................................................................................................... 94 Action by Platform ................................................................................................................... 96 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 14 Building Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 17 Building Norms ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Global White Supremacy in the Digital Era
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research CUNY Graduate Center 2009 Combating Global White Supremacy in the Digital Era Jessie Daniels CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/197 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] 09_120_Ch09.qxd 4/21/09 5:31 AM Page 159 CHAPTER NINE Combating Global White Supremacy in the Digital Era In cyberspace the First Amendment is a local ordinance. —John Perry Barlow In 2002 Tore W. Tvedt, founder of the hate group Vigrid and a Norwegian cit- izen, was sentenced to time in prison for posting racist and anti-Semitic propa- ganda on a website. The Anti-Racism Center in Oslo filed a police complaint against Tvedt. On Vigrid’s website, Tvedt puts forward an ideology that mixes neo-Nazism, racism, and religion. Tvedt was tried and convicted in the Asker and Baerum District Court on the outskirts of Oslo. The charges were six counts of violating Norway’s antiracism law and one count each of a weapons violation and interfering with police. He was sentenced to seventy-five days in prison, with forty-five days suspended, and two years’ probation. Activists welcomed this as the first conviction for racism on the Internet in Norway. Following Tvedt’s release from prison, his Vigrid website is once again online.1 In contrast to the Norwegian response, many Americans seem to view white supremacy online as speech obviously protected under the First Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • 58 the Dangers of Free Speech: Digital Hate Crimes Hate Crimes In
    Ramapo Journal of Law and Society The Dangers of Free Speech: Digital Hate Crimes SARA ELJOUZI* Hate Crimes in the Digital World Hate speech on the Internet has perpetuated a free reign to attack others based on prejudices. While some may dismiss the attacks as rants reduced to a small online community, the truth is that their collective voice is motivating dangerous behavior against minority groups. However, the perpetrators of online hate speech are shielded by anonymous creators and private usernames, and, furthermore, their strongest line of defense rests in the United States Constitution: In the United States, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, online hate speech enjoys the same protections as any other form of speech. These speech protections are much more robust than that of the international community. As a result, hate organizations have found a safe-haven in the United States from which to launch their hateful messages (Henry, 2009, p. 235). The freedom afforded to online users has ultimately compromised the safety of Americans who are targets of hate speech and hate crimes. The First Amendment was created to protect citizens’ right to free speech, but it has also established a sense of invincibility for extremists who thrive in the digital world. Hate Speech and The First Amendment In June 2017, a case arose in the Supreme Court that challenged the limits of free speech. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __, the court unanimously ruled that they cannot deny the creation of trademarks that disparage certain groups or include racist symbols (Volokh, 2017, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersectional Hate Speech Online
    Platforms, Experts, Tools: Specialised Cyber-Activists Network Intersectional Hate Speech Online Project funded by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020) About the Project The EU-funded project sCAN – Platforms, Experts, Tools: Specialised Cyber-Activists Network (2018- 2020), coordinated by Licra (International League Against Racism and Antisemitism), aims at gather- ing expertise, tools, methodology and knowledge on cyber hate and develop-ing transnational com- prehensive practices for identifying, analysing, reporting and counter-acting online hate speech. This project draws on the results of successful European projects already realised, for example the project “Research, Report, Remove: Countering Cyber-Hate phenomena” and “Facing Facts”, and strives to continue, emphasize and strengthen the initiatives developed by civil society for counteracting hate speech. Through cross-European cooperation, the project partners are enhancing and (further) intensifying their fruitful collaboration. The sCAN project partners are contributing to selecting and providing rel- evant automated monitoring tools to improve the detection of hateful con-tent. Another key aspect of sCAN is the strengthening of the monitoring actions (e.g. the monitoring exercises) set up by the European Commission. The project partners are also jointly gathering knowledge and findings to bet- ter identify, ex-plain and understand trends of cyber hate at a transnational level. Furthermore, this project aims to develop cross-European capacity
    [Show full text]
  • Endnotes for Professor Nadine Strossen's Book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship
    Endnotes for Professor Nadine Strossen’s book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press 2018) Endnotes last updated 4/27/18 by Kasey Kimball (lightly edited, mostly for format, 4/28/18 by Nadine Strossen) Note to readers from Nadine Strossen: I gratefully acknowledge the excellent work of my New York Law School student Research Assistants, who prepared these endnotes. Most of the work was done by Kasey Kimball, who did a superb job as my Managing RA. Other valued contributions were made by Dennis Futoryan, Nana Khachaturyan, Stefano Perez, and Rick Shea. I have gladly delegated the endnoting responsibility to them, consistent with the practice of law reviews. Any readers who might have questions or comments about any endnote or source, or who might seek additional information about any point in the book, is welcome to contact me via Email: [email protected]. I will endeavor to respond as promptly as feasible, consistent with a heavy travel and speaking schedule. KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS PAGE PASSAGE CITATION xxiv “essence of self- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 75 (1964). government.” xxiv “entitled to special Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 444 (2011) (quoting Connick v. protection.” Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983)). xxiv “the bedrock” of our Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397, 414 (1989). freedom of speech. xxiv-xxv “information or Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 manipulate public (1994). debate.” xxv “suppression of ideas is R.A.V. v. St.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Hate Speech
    Online hate speech Introduction into motivational causes, effects and regulatory contexts Authors: Konrad Rudnicki and Stefan Steiger Design: Milos Petrov This project is funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union (2014-2020) The content of this manual represents the views of the author only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains. ONLINE HATE SPEECH WHAT IS ONLINE HATE SPEECH? │ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS WHAT IS ONLINE HATE SPEECH? Defining a fuzzy concept 5 Practical definitions 6 HATE - AN EMOTION A psychological perspective 7 Why is it everywhere? 8 GLOBALIZATION OF HATE 9 VICTIMS OF HATE Gender 10 Race/ethnicity/nationality 12 Sexuality 16 HATE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VICTIMS Consequences 17 Moderators 19 HATE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATORS Motivations 20 Moderators 22 HATE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BYSTANDERS Perceptions 23 Moderators 24 COUNTER-COMMUNICATION Definition 26 Effectiveness 27 Challenges 29 Recommendations 30 ONLINE HATE SPEECH WHAT IS ONLINE HATE SPEECH? │ 4 CONTENT MODERATION Definition 32 Effectiveness 33 Challenges 35 Recommendations 37 PSYCHOEDUCATION Definition 40 Effectiveness 41 Recommendations 42 HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL REGULATION 43 MODES OF HATE SPEECH REGULATION 45 HATE SPEECH REGULATION IN GERMANY Legal framework 47 Recent developments 49 Reporting and sanctioning 49 HATE SPEECH REGULATION IN IRELAND Legal framework 50 Recent developments 51 Reporting
    [Show full text]