CEU eTD Collection LESSONS LEARNT, ANDPOLICYIMPLICATIONS. LESSONS LEARNT, USER-GENERATED HATE SPEECH: ANALYSIS, USER-GENERATED HATESPEECH: In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Stefania Milan (University Toronto) of (University Stefania Milan THE CASEOFROMANIA Department of Political Science Political of Department Supervisors: Kate Coyer (CEU) Central European University European Central Istvan-Peter Ianto-Petnehazi Master of Political Science Budapest, Hungary Submitted to Submitted (2012) By CEU eTD Collection analysis, which revealed that 37.99 percent of comments in the sample contained hate speech. hate-typeprovide fordefinitions, andexpandedcategories, intocontent 23 to acodebook to April 2012. A definition of ‘hate’ was created based on the legislation and the encyclopedic minoritieson target andtopics thatoccurredduringa period of 13 months from March 2011 Thearticles6031 comments. purposive weregrouped sampleof 84articles andtherespective of a collection the for asbasis which served news wasperformed, sites Romanian five major of features speechacomparative hate participatory analysisof the user-generated preventing and identifying in policies usage site the of and legislation Romanian the of efficiency the to test and phenomena the of proportions assess the To hate-speech. generated labeled user membersby Romaniai.e. hate‘users’ of propagate speech: the audience the aphenomena to This isthesis a descriptive casestudy use about interactiveof features of newspapersonline in Abstract II CEU eTD Collection this thesis and mystay at CEU would havenot been possible. dedicate this thesismy to partner Anna without whose love, support and programming skills guidance, support and patience through the writing of this thesis and my two years at CEU. I I express my gratitude to my supervisors Professors Kate Coyer and Stefania Milan,for their Acknowledgements I CEU eTD Collection AppendixResults 3. the of content analysis...... 97 Annexes ...... 87 References: 84 ...... Conclusions ...... 76 Distributionhate of basedtarget on groupstopics and ...... 70 accountabilityMedia ...... 42 convergenceMedia ...... 41 User-generatedChapterIV. speechhate ...... 40 Chapter III. Hate speech and freedom ofexpression...... 31 Chapter II. The networked publicsphere and user generated content ...... 20 Coding ...... 15 Chapter I.Methodology...... 6 Introduction 1 ...... ofContents Table AppendixExamples 4. of hate comments ...... 110 Appendix:Codingprotocol 2. and codebookfor user generated hatespeech ...... 89 Appendix 1.Minority related issues inthe Romanianpress ...... 87 Directions4. for further research...... 83 Preventing2. user-generated speechhate ...... 80 2.The nature and enabling factorsuser-generated of hate speech ...... 76 ContentCommentsAnalysisIV.3. of ...... 56 ComparativeIV.2. analysisuser participationof thewebsites on ...... 45 RegulatoryIV.1 environment...... 41 preliminaryA definition ...... 40 III.2.Regulating online hate ...... 37 III.1. Freedom of thepress on the internet. Blurring boundaries ...... 34 II.2.Usercomments their andeffects ...... 24 OnlineII.1. newssites ...... 22 I.5. Socialcontext. Romania and itsminorities ...... 15 ResearchstrategyI.3...... 14 Case selectionI.2. sampling and ...... 8 ResearchI.1. questions ...... 7 II. Codebookfor user generatedhate speech ...... 93 Proportionhatespeech oftypes ...... 65 ContentAnalysis: findings ...... 61 frameCoding ...... 60 56...... Codebook: Assessing effectiveness of sites participation policies and anti-discrimination legislation Consequencestheof TOS:responsible whois foruser comments? ...... 53 Participation ondedicated forumsand comments ...... 52 Responsibility andintellectual propertyrights for user generated content ...... 51 Comparison of terms and conditions orethical guidelines (TOS) ...... 50 Placementcommentsof thepagein ...... 49 Moderationpolicies ...... 46 Legislationregarding hate speech ...... 44 Regulatoryframework Romaniain ...... 42 Theoreticalconsiderations ...... 41 Comment sample forcontent analysis ...... 11 II CEU eTD Collection Figure 3.Proportion Figure of hatespeech articletopics on 2:ProportionFigure of‘hate’commentsonthefive sites Figure 1:Sample/Database structure Figures groups hate Table 3.Proportion speechagainst target of in sample speech entire types the Proportion of Hate Table 2. BRAT/SATI numbersTable 1.Circulation and uniquevisitors websites for the inthesample.Source: Tables of List tables andfigures III CEU eTD Collection EXCLUSIV -Gandul.” over content and freedom of andspeech freedom of content over for everyone. mass audiences features of online newsvariety issuesof and the difficulties posedsites, to regulators focusing on the audience participation particularly the Iwill exemplify itsimplications. media and policy internet, from tothe print newspapers comments of transition the of feature toimportant most the articles, interactivity, of exploration an is study This which opened up access to arestill there. than calls genocide 600 andthe for said “peacefully”. Almostactually who leader, Hungarian of the the words distorted headline same daythe the on out a year later the number minority, Hungarian murderof of leaders the their rapeof or the Hungarian Asitwomen. turned comments to the articlearticle 340reader prompted comments 70 whichof called forextermination the the of grew to more 4 3 2 despre-nesupunerea-civica-in-prima-faza-iesim-in-strada-fara-arme-apoi-o-sa-vedem-exclusiv-8342275 Jude the First Phase We Will Get to the Streets Without Weapons. Than We Will See’ (Tamas Sandor 1 (UDMR), between and forums differentiating and private opinions public questions ofasforsome instance of of the web2.0era,increaseddifficulty important the the majority. Romanian with a region into counties two their would dissolve territorial country which stop proposed the the reorganization of minority to million Hungarian 1.2 leaders of country’s the the of determination referring the 2011, to home page of Gandul.infoone of mostthe visited Romanian online newspapers on 16 the on headline the see”said will Then we weapons. without streets to the go we will “First Introduction was revealed that the journalist mistranslated the Hungarian word Barendt, 2007; Cammaert, 2009 Braman, 2006 Kaufer, 2004 gandul.info.2011. “Tamas Sandor (DAHR) the Chief of the County Councilof CovasnaAbout the Civil Disobedience: ‘In Ġ ean Covasna, Despre „nesupunerea Civic http://www.gandul.info/politica/tamas-sandor-udmr-seful-consiliului-judetean-covasna- 2 The analysis of these online spaces incorporate in one place ă ": „În Prima Faz 4 ; the blurring distinction between audiences and audiences between distinction blurring ; the 1 ă , Ie bekesen (peacefully) bekesen ú im În Strad 1 Hours within the publication the ă F ăUă 3 Arme. Apoi oS ; the tension between control between ; thetension giving it the sense withoutweapons ă Vedem”.) ù eful Consiliului . Later. it th June CEU eTD Collection http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/study/country_rep/index_en.htm. Media. Belgium. Country reports - Study on Indicators for Media PluralismJönköping - InternationalMedia Business TaskSchool Force -MMTC Central European| Europa University - CMCS - InformationErnst & Young Consultancy Society and 8 authorities/supervisory bodies authorities/supervisory state supervisiondedicated with heavystate quite areboth under in Europe category. Is it the policy media an adequate into website the of placing facedthe problem legislators internet the same as the print edition newspapers to intrusive.mediums With moreof transition the were newspaper, while other a and (buy) seek actively to has thereforeone i.e. medium, on-demand an being that was press printed should be subjected to the same orcontent licensing regarding instance lack the regulations as for of liberties larger significantly press enjoyed printed media,the broadcast to compared Historically being published andto reach itstargets. websitesfor publicorcontent hostingplatforms interactive features of aimedatthegeneral intimidating/harming particular minority groups (ethnic,sexual, racial)takingadvantage of usually created users,video, multimedia), bynon-professional, andanonymous aimedat generated content and hate speech. I define user generated hate speech hate defineand speech.I hate usergenerated content generated speechincludes elements hate from My both conceptuser generated of the user of definition speech. hate generated target vulnerable be to by can users interactive features exploited by of websites the audiencesprovidedmass groups to facile access with coupled media policy, and authorities ineffective regulations, obsolete with hateful, discriminatory content. I have termed this: user- 7 best knowledge this is the first research paper that uses and defines the term. definition. A search on Sage online journals and EBSCO host complete did not return results forthe term. To my http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n02/brown-sica_m01.html of Hate Speech.” Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship6 the term user-generated v.9 hateno.2, speech is mentioned no. Summerin Brown-Sica, Margaret,2008 and Jeffrey Beall. “Library 2.0 and the Problem 5 publishers An extensive overview of different regulatory toolkits and bodies can be found at K.U.Leuven – ICRI (lead contractor) (lead ICRI – K.U.Leuven at found be can bodies and toolkits regulatory ofdifferent overview extensive An Braman,Sandra. 2006. Benkler,2006; Schafer,2011; Valcke and Lenaerts, 2010 Independent Study on Indicators for MediaPluralism in the Member States - Towards aRisk-Based Approach. 5 . In this thesis I will present how the weaknesses of unclear and sometimes Change of state 6 8 . Cambridge (Mass.) . Traditionally the main argument for lesser regulation of the ;;London: the MIT press. p.68 2 . But the authors do not provide a provide not do authors the But . as content (text, audio, (2008). 7 , which at least, which at CEU eTD Collection does contain a warning about potentially harmful content and a disclaimer for any harm caused to readers. 9 originatingfrom their users. content harmful hosting also be might they that readers their warn not do websites usually a conscious decision and thus assumes the risk of facing While whatever it canbe argued that by taking the contentdecision to access a certain website, is the readerdisplayed made there, asitcontent. is legal iffalleven case discriminatory underthe they restrictions of might areusuallyauthors anonymous thus andfaceunaccountable noconsequences for their actions, their journalists professional to contrary but articles, of regular audience the potentially and space, journalistic same sharethe They editors/journalists. or audience and regulation, user comments, which are difficult to fit into one of the traditional categories of mediain case evident isthe policy of problem. furtherThis especially the complicated needed? Interactivity isand press,“relaxed” applying tothe product new thus or ita totally are rules rules different the targeted group itwhere group the could mosttargeted inflict harm. the developments can be exploited made unclear bynew regulation presentingand obsolete legislation how technical to deliver discriminatoryby signal gap, hate speech in a policy Romania and to user generated of thedescribe problem and contentis analyze do to aims thesis this What specificallyproblem. the solve would that solution a offer to is to members of It is not my intention to get to the social, economical cultural roots, causes of hate speech nor which offer an answer. thesis this cannot for of questions hand areaseries On other there the speech.hate to of platform readers could open up thepossibility for websitebe the exploited to by usersthe asadelivery policies participation inadequate whether question the harmful raising content; to visitors all exposing thus contributions, user legitimate and text as theprofessional (same page) My analysis of the website terms and conditions revealed that the terms of use for one of the websites in the sample (evz.ro) 9 Such is usuallycontent in thedisplayed same journalistic space 3 CEU eTD Collection 11 10 ina Resulting discriminative content. disseminate to features interactive abuse their of the extent of hate speech and the analyzeassess to site, portal news one and newspapers major Romanian four of the from websites the the effectiveness of their policies in preventing the asmany suggestmedia inthenext cited chapters mediascholars the product, of are to be considered co-authorsfor clearer rules and for theuser participation,contentitarguments rather censorship, internet itendorse does nor for, advocate not does This thesis created and the separationby them is of anprofessional essential and UGC.part If usersof the performed content analysis on a purposive or relevance sample or onapurposive analysis content performed l speech I hate of definition encyclopedic the terms sites andconditions, the legislation, based speechis presence of Using the websites, onthe existing acodebook hate widespread. of the policies in participation the are transposed laws that anti-discrimination a rangeof of spite In legislation. anti-discrimination and media regulation of Romanian andthe areview speech hate generated user of existence in play the policies participation role audience their websites of the almost from comments of asample of analysis content all of a triangulation is nationalmethodology The daily newspapers in Romania,policymakers. a comparative analysisroles of the of users in the expression of freedom speech hate regulation, to approaches conflicting even different, the new online environment, IwillFirst, from phenomena the andlegal media presenting describe perspective theory as well assuch content.some of for the audiences mass to access the prevent would that challenges policies moderating implement and them faced by just as in the traditional press model the newspaper should assume editorial responsibility for Krippendorf, 2004:113; Ritchie and Lewis, 2008: 78 Benkler (2006), Deuze (2008), Schafer (2011) 4 11 of user comments collected comments user of 10 , Iargue that CEU eTD Collection framework that contributed to its thatframework contributed proliferation.to regulatory speech legaland the hate inRomania, phenomena description usergenerated the of 5 CEU eTD Collection http://www.cncd.org.ro/files/file/Fenomenul%20discriminarii%202009.pdf. perceptions and attitudes in 2009 15 university press. - and also Gross, Peter, and Mihai Coman. 2006. Peter. 1996. Peter. 14 Publications. 13 Online.” 12 platform transformation ofnewspapers unidirectionalinto from printed products an interactiveonline hate-speech labeled usergenerated have Romaniaby membersthe of the audience i.e. ‘users’ to propagate hate speech: aphenomena I use of in onlineThis features interactive casestudy of newspapers isadescriptive thesis about Chapter I. Methodology collective instrumental, and intrinsic, case studies: of Stake types arethree there According to content. ethnic/religious/racial/sexual minorities ethnic/religious/racial/sexual intolerance thewidespread towards in or media the its representation hybrid control such itsform from its evolution present printedand as a state to deregulated of online a detailedwarrant examination that press)havecharacteristics here (the presented components studies. Itis an intrinsic study in the sense that the Romanian media system andits from has both phenomena.a broader My features of understandingtypes of research case hand other study instrumental the when caseitself case performing only the facilitate serves the On in that. result can it sometimes although building theory at aimed not and exploring worth features hassomeitself particular case because the case, a particular understanding of INSOMAR. 2009. For a detailed overview of the development of the Romanian media system from the fall of the communism see. Gross, Stake, Robert. 2005. Qualitative Case Studies. In Deuze, Mark. 2003. “The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of Newsmedia 14 New Media & Society New Media ; the existence of the Hungarian community,one of the largest minority in Europe and 12 Mass media in revolution and national development 13 resulted in loopholes in media policy that contribute a widerin contribute to spreadof loopholessuch resulted inmediapolicy that . Intrinsic case studies consist of research undertaken in order to get a better Fenomenuldiscriminarii in Romania -perceptii siatitudini" in anul 2009 Discrimination- in Romania- 5 (2) (June): 203-230. doi:10.1177/1461444803005002004. . CNCD - National Anti-Discrimination Council, Romania. Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 15 . On the other hand it is also an instrumental case . The aim of this research is to show how the 6 : theRomanian laboratory Media and journalism in Romania , 443, 467. 3rd ed. Sage ed. 3rd 467. 443, , . Ames (Iowa): Iowa state . Berlin: Vistas. CEU eTD Collection presence of user generated hate speech? hate presence of user generated tothe contribute media organizations of the rules userparticipation the media product, of the RQ2: Do the legislative, regulatory environment, the editorial moderatingor policies, the type speech? hate isRQ1: What ofuser nature the generated propagation. its contribute to seethefactors that andsecondto speechin hate practice, user generated address this, the thesis focuses on two research questions, one present what exactly constitutes to speech.Inorder hate of leaduser-generated presence the to that policy the approaches reveal to and responsibility of is that understand better to seeks thesis this question larger The questions I.1. Research followingthe questions. research answer to inorder observation from the resulted policies usage site and comments of articles, sample a of analysis is content method research primary The sections. thecomments through appear they as policies these of results the and participation, handle user organizations media selected the way the both reveal to intention the with 2011 March in started of isfive newssites a sample long based The research Romanian on a year of observation and shortcomings the ofmedia adapted policy inadequately internet.to the challenges such of illustration suitable asaparticularly speechserves hate case of sense the later.as it In this content be will for usergenerated presented responsibility anonymity or user of question the as such interactivity, towards developments more and recent the internet, the to move the by caused journalism of transformations the to due alike journalists and study itaimscontributeas toabetter to understanding of challengesthe facedby regulators 7 CEU eTD Collection national) for the period march 2011 - march 2012. http://www.brat.ro/index.php?page=compare. 16 and power) Romanian Bureau of Circulation Audit The(BRAT) newspapers and websitesincludes all national newspapers in Romania with relevant userparticipation and circulation. were selected asit acensus be considered almost can sample This system. media of Romanian the segment based on information of newspaper participation online policies complete of overviewuser andcomparison from the database of moderation visibletechniques when the byvisiting These site comments. allowed or a posting the andapparent by userregistration requirements produced the media organization, content the the to relation in comments of placement the interface, posting comments the participation) sample includes terms of use/terms of service (TOS)of (especiallywebsites user regarding for this collected Data organizations/sites. media were the of units analysis herethe assembled was news-sites Romanian of asample hate speech user generated of in existence the user participation guidelines to and participation tostudy rolethe approaches of In order user usercomments. and respective of the newspapers online samples of Romanian connected inresulted that using wereanswered adual The research sampletwo approach questions sampling and selection I.2. Case Five of these newspapers were included in the original sample, the other two other sample, the in original includedthe newspapers were Five these of national study the March national 2011 -April 2012 listed 7 newspapers daily ( conditions as the other sites the level of user participation was low, during the 13 month 13 low,the during was user participation thelevelof sites other conditions asthe couplea after sample the from excluded months was (www.jurnalul.ro) Journal) (The Jurnalul Gandul). of observationcirculationin numbers around 9000of (around3000compared to lowestthe sample the as it became clear that although it had similar terms and BRAT - Romanian Bureau of Circulation Audit. Circulation number for nationwide daily newspapers (cotidian generalist ) composing the “quality so called of segment national the press” excludingtabloids. Curierul National National National (The Courier) wereexcluded very due lowto 8 16 shown in Table 1. BRAT for the period of cotidian generalist Puterea (The CEU eTD Collection an online only medium. as it serves as an illustration of the transition of the press from a print through a inmarch hybrid 2011. version was printed discontinued that online/print to beginning weremadethe gandul.info for included. of which at still had Exceptions study the a where edition had aprinted that media organizations/sites only therefore environment, samplethe asthey aim the research this of was tostudy transitionthe toonlinenewspapers of in general. Other rankingtop news sites belong mostly to televisions and were not included in Romanian websites audited high news-sites,amongst alsoranking inof visitors category the websites in the sample Romanian themost areamongst visited in websites of terms unique in Table1the of BRAT presented study audience (SATI) from data internet the According to comments. of sample the into included be to article per would20 comments leastmeet of at having criteria that the few articles hadvery observation 9 The newspaper kept was also inthesample Mar 2011 Mar Apr 2011 2011 May 2011 Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Aug Sep 2011 2011 Oct Nov 2011 2011 Dec Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar Period Table 1. Circulation numbers and unique visitors for the websites in the sample. Source: BRAT/SATI 2012 45685 45109 43946 43415 42849 35899 32937 29764 27222 29102 Print n/a n/a n/a Adevarul 1956475 2167916 1843188 2278284 2487269 2504943 2417629 2670791 2435230 2273464 1992992 1695829 1912514 Online CEU eTD Collection 17965 16751 16271 16 15634 16351 15556 15658 15507 16174 Print 336 n/a n/a n/a Evz 1274258 1082108 1168603 1288791 1476645 1196650 1332726 1490293 1474793 1464764 1606177 1530202 1448594 Online 10333 Print 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Gandul 1625373 1529326 1645980 1752421 1815485 1671246 1851449 2118880 2090535 2082459 2381772 2293050 2166162 Online 41809 42276 41366 40602 39748 39454 39205 3825 37786 36707 RimaniaLibera Print n/a n/a n/a 5 775532 619483 660472 624048 702302 592135 665884 727147 692299 626572 775395 731550 717093 Online Hotnews 1465 1219350 1297142 1353130 1340255 1117038 1210038 1383016 1328460 1332912 1555655 1459331 1310320 Online 323 CEU eTD Collection 18 340 17 populationthe publishedit texts of intheRomanian will be that Ibelieve press. However, a correctly” being answered texts based on their relevancepurposive orrelevance sample was assembled asdescribed byKrippendorf by choosing the for the question. researchresearch the answer to potential their shaped are paths’ questions‘analytical in order to give and texts’ choicesof where the ‘suitable studies analysis’by Krippendorf as described content them “a chance of ‘problem The study falls category of within the first research driven design question (RQ1). 83 articlesto regarding minorities from fivethe websites, in togiveorder antothe answer comments of 6081 onasample analysis content Iperformed of research stage second For the forcontent analysis Comment sample analysis user comments. of content relevant to media and hate speech that was also used in the creation of the codebook legislation identify forto thealso was environment regulatory the in analyzing step additional An majority of their content is original production. hand other butthe the on newspapers, other of from sites is the collected content of some the as of an aggregator features has somethe of still site the However name. the and changed revistrapresei.ro (the review of the press) butlater started adding their own original content name the from newspapersunder other offering of asample articles/content news aggregator originally out a anews inRomanian portal newspapers. islabeled Thesite and itstarted as as edition itbutwas included in samplethe duetoits strong connection to traditional (i.e. print) a print without mediaorganization, digital is natively a Hotnews.ro exception The other Idem, p. 113 Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content analysis :an introduction to its methodology 18 . Since it is not probabilistic sample, it is not be representative for be representative isnot it sample, probabilistic not is it Since . 11 . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks Calif.: Sage,.p. 17 Therefore a Therefore CEU eTD Collection London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications p. 80 20 London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. p 78 contributing meeting to requirement. this month whileof further observation websites, alargediversity also five the providing of is a thirteen result section the in following list presented the of the topics Furthermore way. in any altered not and websites the on were they as preserved were comments the was only involved on the selection of topics disproved. be or confirmed and articles, while the primary unitspurposiveprovide needout the and samples point to equal for hypotheses to the opportunities of analysis Ritchie, and Lewis Elam also caution about levelthe researchers involvedof deliberation in anquestion.earlieranswer tothe research to or presented definition the illustration methodrandom would sampling have resulted inasamplewould that provide accurate no as minorities for relevance of criteria first the to due involved be to had judgment Selective criteria in wasintroduced selecting only with articles leastat 20 comments and 500views. a second andaudience in interestdebate form of the sufficient generated that articles includes sample the Toensurethat debate. generate likely to are and minorities, membersthe of the to interest are of that minorities regarding topics with articles include was to criteria selection 19 characteristics. or features have particular they because selected ‘deliberately’ i.e.are they be sample, inthe included” to certain criteria meet haveto “units al. that et Ritchie to is according sampling purposive of feature The main texts”. relevant of “population the for illustration good Ritchie, Jane, and Jane Lewis. 2003. Ritchie, Jane, and Jane Lewis. 2003. 20 I believe this requirement is met by my sample as my judgment as sample my by ismet requirement this believe I Qualitative research practice Qualitative research practice 19 12 In the case of the present research the first : a guide for social science students and researchers : a guide for social science students and researchers . . CEU eTD Collection Figure 1:Sample/DatabaseFigure structure 1 3 CEU eTD Collection newspapers. suchasonline platform interactive an consider whenanalyzing to important are and analysis my form of alsobase the data These website. the on of debate/dialogue the characteristics received the by audience votes the or a commentbetween linkcomments, preserving the such as thetime commentsthe when werecommentspublished published, by a givenuser or information database important contain itself Beyondalso they text the word. sense of the traditional in the text just than more are comments as sample, my analyzing for needed was into a database, according to criteria such as, topic, user, article article etc. user, criteriasuch as, topic, to according a database, into informationextract from (parsethehtmlfiles),andbuilt itto archived webpages arrange the 22 21 element. every capturing of webpages the snapshot identical of an allows creation the that Zotero extension browser internet free the using (archived) captured were comments and articles The in of for eachissue.comments sample the Homosexuality Appendix(LGTB), Anti-semitism/Holocaust(Jewish).lists 1also the number groups: Hungarians, Roma, target four speech hate into them furtherand grouped media, Romanian inthe occurred that minorities regarding 1) Appendix in (shown topics main long month observation Ihave fivethe of 6081 comments to 75articles sites collected, in16 circulation data from the Romanian Bureauon based of Press chosen Circulationwebsites five the on audit comments, (BRAT).individual are During analysis of units thethe 13earlier Figure 1 presents the schematic structure of the sample for the content analysis.As mentioned strategy I.3. Research Online access to the database is available on request by email to [email protected] www.zotero.org 21 Enlisting the helpof a professional adedicated tool programmer, software was 14 22 Purpose built software CEU eTD Collection generated. 29 London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications historical and to political factors. The 1,2 million Hungarians, (6.5 percent of of percent population the (6.5 million Hungarians, The 1,2 political factors. andto historical consistof topics/articles and comments aboutthe Hungarian minority, this is due partially to sample of proportion largestthe The period. observation the during Romanian the press in minorities that occurred Appendix topics various regarding anillustration the of 2provides minorities its and Romania context. I.5. Social coefficient. hate of .72 for tester1and author, the and 2and .73for tester a author, the satisfying and the respective 330comments resulting Kfor inCohen’s main the categories of hate/non- four articles sub of sample generated a randomly on of codebook the performed atest coders independent ensurecoding. objectivity two To out carry also can an individual researcher 28 Saldana as such authors hand other the On codebook. the of development in the part taken not have who coders trained well independent, two least literature the to According 27 26 25 encyclopedia of communication 24 23 definition of hate speech legislation Romanian existing the on based wascreated speechacodebook hate generated as comments user (code) identify objectively to speech.Inorder hate user generated of allowed andpropagation that existence the policy media in loopholes signal to is research this of aim the in RQ2 earlier mentioned As Coding The number of comments for this subsample was maximized at 100 per article the rest being deleted after the sample was Ritchie, Jane, and Jane Lewis. 2003. Saldaña, Johnny.2009. Krippendorf (2004),Neundorf (2002),Berg (2001) The codebook presented is in detail in section IV.3, while the codebook canfound be in Appendix 1. Kinney, Terry A. 2008.Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms. In Donsbach, Wolfgang. ed, 2008. Government Ordinance (Romania) nr.137/ 31August 2000 (republished) 29 The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Malden MA: Blackwell Pub. 24 26 , and the observation of dominant themes in the comments. the in themes dominant of observation the and , to ensure to reliability objectivity and coding should bedone by at Qualitative research practice 23 15 , the TOS of the five sites, the encyclopedia five the sites, the TOSof , the : a guide for social science students and researchers . London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. 27 and Richie andLewis and Richie The international The 28 consider that consider . 25 CEU eTD Collection http://www.cncd.org.ro/files/file/Fenomenul%20discriminarii%202009.pdf perceptions and attitudes in 2009 Hungarians seek to disintegrate Romania, and the return of Transylvania to Hungary. For more on the nationalist discourse nationalist the on more For Hungary. to regarding Hungarians in Romania seeTransylvania Brubakerof (2008) return the and Romania, disintegrate to seek Hungarians Romanian population, implying that by asking for educational, cultural, This linguistic,is the so calledor collective Hungarian minority card, frequentlyrights the used by politicians of all party orientations and widely accepted in the 31 Bucuresti, Sentinta Civila Nr.2799.” http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/caselawFrontEndAccess.do?id=165. Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. “Romania / Traian Basescu V. CNCD, Dosar Nr. 4510/2/2007, Curtea De Apel 30 in who calling 2007 wasrecorded on tape afemale journalist “filthy gipsy” thepresident, asfar reaching discourse anti-Roma criminality,once linked to and abroad, minorities. TheRoma blamedfortowards minority is badthe regularly of image country the attitudes speech thewidespread negative forishate studyingdue to Romania case suitable Romanian media, but not always in ethnic terms. Hungarian politicians and the DAHR are frequently presented (i.e. dailybasis)the on in the activity political intense DAHR’s to Due elections. national inthe votes the of percent 7 around gathers consistently party that in anethnic (DAHR) Romania Hungarians of Alliance Democraticthe April,until (from 2012) of parliamentthe 27-th and2002 the Government presencein due tothe power, political considerable has also handcommunity Hungarian the On in World tendencies. blamedWarthe frequently other the with I. separatist 1920, andare region of Transylvania, censusthe minorityaccordinglargest in of2011)are mostly to live inthat Romania.the They the became part of Romania after the treaty of Trianon, that ended 33,9 percentbelieve they agenda than that have different restof the citizens;the 61,6percent (CNCD) Discrimination Combating Council a survey of According requestthe made from 2009 on National the discrimination to at European Union. widespread, homosexuality being decriminalized onlyin 2001 atthe pressures of the page show homophobia is onthenext from Semitism, pollsthe results the cited and as is anti there country in the living still people Jewish of number small extremely the despite INSOMAR. for anoverview of the case in English and the legal actions taken against the President by the CNCD see: FRA - European Fenomenuldiscriminarii inRomania - perceptii si atitudini" in anul2009 - Discrimination in Romania- . CNCD. - NationalAnti-Discrimination Council, Romania, 2009. 31 16 Hungarians are still regarded with suspicion as with suspicion regarded arestill Hungarians . 30 . Furthermore CEU eTD Collection 34 http://www.cncd.org.ro/files/file/Raport%20de%20cercetare%20CNCD_Discriminare.pdf. Privind Discriminarea in Romania) of exemption from religion classes is denied in a school that has no classes on his religion on classes has no that in aschool is denied classes religion from of exemption if his be request discriminated to considera student not 27percentdo public place.Moreover percentfor being and pregnant if 12 percent access the Romaof personsis deniedintoa consider it tobe discrimination if isa person fired from his job for being homosexual, 11 not do sense 12percent meaningof the discrimination as havecitizens about adistorted 33 32 of havingrespondents bad very bad of or opinion Roma,the 16percentof Hungarian the found main the aresimilarThe attitudes towards in minority tothose groups 43 percent 2009; discrimination the regarding theCNCD surveyof 2012 latest the According to agenda”. “haveadifferent minorities orother Hungarians belief to the that refers also threat’ interest ‘conspiracy/foreign code while the education, public services andhigher to Hungarians access that mentioned earlier attitudes these reflect to inbuilt order were that analysis of content the codebook inthe subcategories are several men.There than homosexual,furthermore analarming arelessintelligent 10,3percentbelievethat women as a be mental treated feeling hearing 22percentconfessing repulsion word disease the of should it that consider percent 50 than more homosexuality about views Regarding Romania. for they saidare adisgrace Romapercentlaw, andthat most break 48 the that believe 74percent neighbors; people as homosexual Romaeven or not accept questioned would those found alarge majority of anti-Roma report that, Withthe respectto views family members. neighbors andeven as co-workers, accepted peoplehard and honest working are considered Hungarians survey the to according hand other the On Hungarian. in education higher with and43,2percent schools disagreeHungarian existence of the with Romanian, 35,9percent questionedof those Hungarians believe thatshould address all public servicesonly in taking religion classes is mandatory in the primary and optional in the secondary schools TNS CSOP, Romania. 2012. see Appendix 1.II Perceptions and Attitudes Regarding Discrimination in Romania (Perceptii Si Atitudini . Survey. Romania: CNCD, Romania. 32 ; forviewinstancethe ‘denying rights’ to refers 17 33 Romanian 34 . CEU eTD Collection proportions for refusing the presence of Romathe and minorities.Hungarian is insimilar resulted country “Exclusion/This which analysisour subcategory content the 35 into codebook the introduce me to leadin country minorities presence of the the only like seeto them as tourists measure 5 percent.to This high level of people refusing even proportion of refusingthose their presencein Romania is 4 percents while those whowould the and family (25%) and (33%) asfriends even them halfaccepting more than acceptance, beand they that in not should 6percentconsiders all. Romania enjoy a greater at Hungarians Roma livingas visitors accepts 6percentthem intheWhen country, 22percent to referring “to visit Romania” whilehomosexuals, 9percent acceptableto in “living relationship Romania” theclosest considered 16 percent consider In thequestions regarding minorities,distanceof 24percent social respondents to the that they should not come politicianspeople,journalists and 46% weretoblamefor 45% thediscrimination. to Romania at all. orientation the on television forpress.or responsibility As thatordinary 48% considered 76% of respondentsnoticedthe discrimination based onethnicity, 47%basedonsexual and media Regarding survey role aforementioned in the the the of to according discrimination, stereotypes aboutHungarians. negative question regarding tothe respond not did 38% who wasahighproportion of there Hungariansviewed weredishonest. by asintolerant aggressive by Surprisingly 30%, 14%. be 35% lazy,aggressive, Roma the considered to 45% question, 46% multiple-choice having norbad ina whopercentreported stereotypes “neither Regarding opinion”. good, 40 of about wasahigh proportion there communities allminority of For Roma. percent minority, while36percenthada good very or good opinion of Hungarians andonly 14 see Appendix 1.II 18 35 for the for CEU eTD Collection Romania a perfect case for my research. aperfect Romania intolerance with in making phenomena amplify regulation widespread the coupled the shortcomings the as visible clearly most is this where issue the being speech hate it, regulating of thecomplexities content, usergenerated beon my will focusthesis of central the However candidate making of hate speech for astudy phenomena. Romaniaof the thus agood serves as abrief description a majority of minority – thatfavorsrelationship the propagation inter-ethnic andentering the social Withoutfurther above regardinginto context, detail the 19 CEU eTD Collection University Press. p.52 39 International Journal ofResearch into New Media Technologies 38 Malden MA: Blackwell Pub. 37 36 recently Web 2.0.” the ineconomy 1990s,andmost the technologies: “the notion of 1980s,tele-democracy in virtual the communities and the new shifts inandpower social mostlyrelations, based on participatorythe nature of these radical about expectations utopian to lead that technologies, new by driven “revolutions” AccordingVan to Dijk (2006)in century lastthe we have witnessed atleastfour generated content Chapter II.The networkedpublic sphereand user Communication of Encyclopedia International the to According (UGC). content generated ofuser role central the through importantly most expressed media inthe interactivity increased is the ‘revolution’ cultural butincludesithas amore cultural like rating production: form or active tagging contents, or others with interaction implies not does and user activities of automation the interface, andposting, includesuploading content, commenting, is while latter by driven the the member” manipulate or otherwise modify someone else’s content to or add ability new“the is content as audienceinteractivity definition: better somewhat a formulates Robinson authors out, it is a “key feature ofadaptation between a medianew and human user”. However media,as Bucy cited in the same entry points but we scarcely know what it is”. Based on several distinguishes between explicit and implicit participation. implicit and explicit between distinguishes of creative effort, and which is created outside of professional routines and practices”. Schafer is(2007) itmade “content publicly whichavailable overthe a Internet, certainreflects amount Schäfer, Mirko. 2011. Downes and McMillan,2000; Steur, 1992 cited in Robinson, Sue. 2010.Traditionalists vs.Convergers. Neumann, Russel W. 2008. Interactivity, Concept of. In Van Dijk (2006, cited in Schafer 2011:25) 38 . There is no generally accepted definition for UGC. According to the OECD the to According for UGC. definition accepted generally is no . There 37 interactivity is an “elusive concept” referring to the “phenomena of mutual “phenomena of the referring to isconcept” an“elusive interactivity Bastard culture! how: user participation transforms cultural production The international encyclopedia of communication 20 16, no.1 (February 1): 125 -143. 36 39 An important feature of the latest The former is motivation driven, motivation is former The . Amsterdam: Amsterdam Convergence: The , 2318-2321. CEU eTD Collection 44 extended theirproduction beyond established channels incorporating user activities into media mass the that meant only revolution 2.0 web that holds Schafer Jenkins, by formulated mediatext” commercial of appropriation driven “community model of culture” “participatory 43 42 41 [Conn.] :: Yale University Press, 40 as producers.” status their questions clearly way that production mode to the sphere of users, allowing mass media to“employ user activities in a happenedout thatthisempower not inextend does theaudience to orderto rather but their his“extendedformulates in industry” cultural Benkler model contradiction directto pointing of cultural industries shifted platform from forcreator towards UGC. provider in role the web 2.0. fact that the the with views byagreeing someBenkler’s of Schafer shares both at the same time. sometimes even it or be consumer producer, ascan sometimes traditional producer/consumer, in the new toinformation relationship ‘user’ whichiskind of addition to production a public will that more resultingculture sphere” be“moreina“networked reflexive” critical, passive butactive whocan recipients participants”, produce their a cultural own environment, as “not participate in conversation public to the enablingcitizens forplatform debate public Benkler talks about a ‘networked information economy’ which provides a more robust even being a member of a social or peer to peer (p2p) network or reading an online article. finished goods” as rather conversation to invitations be now as seen spherecan in public the “statements and by that of by‘finished utterances actors’ a small set idea constructed a publicsphere of the ended it is that Internet the of effect durable and important most the that holds Benkler Idem.p 168) Schafer, 139 p. idem idem p.180 Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The wealth of networks how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven Bastard Culture 168 41 . The central role in this ‘networked information economy’ is played by the by played is economy’ information ‘networked in this role central The . 42 . 21 44 Comparing his approach tothe his Comparing approach 43 However he However 40 . CEU eTD Collection Lives and Public Rhetoric. Expression: The Rise of Representatives of the Personal. In 47 Published : Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric. 46 http://fuchs.uti.at/wp- content/uploads/Google_FastCapitalism.pdf. host, publichost, can andprivate and bebestexaminedcoexist thus inoneplace.Thefirstonline intermixingthe publisher, blurringdescribed of aboveabout categories of audience, the and issues the where example an is news online into journalism traditional of transformation The sites news II.1. Online public communication. of improvement audience”, raising how the question to turn thisqualitative quantitative into explosion assemblemass to a power prior by measured their publicwas expression capacity to by previous where“speakers speaker,contrary models forto the granted self-selected any eliminated the existing abouttheright assumptions to speakthemasses, which is nowtaken allowed more forms for expression by giving access to mass audiences to individuals, but also intrusion lifethe into the publicof forum private on internet whoargues the brought that by isview expressed Couture, A radically different content whilegenerated any it. declining for responsibility they are in control where imposerelationships contractual unilaterally whereby agreements companies media the of all their users asitdata inpleases togain order foundresearch also My profit. similarabusiveTOS access data,in which clauses abusive of(TOS) company service terms the the allow use useitsthe users but also reap all the benefit of the user- 45 byGoogle, exploited creators content and of labor” users “unpaid the about commercial media production. A similarbut more radical view is shared by Fuchs, who talks Kaufer, David S.2004. The Influence of Expanded Accessto Mass Communication on Public Couture, Barbara. 2004. Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric: What’s at Stake? In Fuchs, Christian. 2011. “A Contribution to the Critique of a Political Economy of Google.” , 153-165. Logan: Utah State University Press, p.155 47 , 1-30. Logan :: Utah State University Press, p.18 Private, the Public, and the Published : Reconciling Private 22 46 . Kaufer shows that the internet not only Fastcapitalism Private, the Public, and the 45 by inserting by (8(1)). CEU eTD Collection media. in traditional the editor tothe likeletters much the control editorial strict areunder comments moderationclosedrangingfrom ‘open’ whereanything users can post without to where scale a on participation of level the ranks He communication. participatory for a platform also online world interactivity is amore prominentfeature, as news sites not only offer content but deliveraudiences,Deuze, in traditionally news journalism’s the to to role according wasto Online.” 50 Pub. 49 48 and provision the content public connectivity” of produced professionally between acontinuum on “somewhere news internet placing sections, comment the on back” innew provided news medium most cases space “talk- audience sites forthe online to also internet the to specific something into edition paper of the variant an online from evolved that process transformation and newsat werecreated migration end sites the newspapers anddedicated a of 1990sstarting the Deuze, Mark. 2003. “The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of Newsmedia Deuze, Mark. 2008. Internet News. In .……(Springer, 2004:3363) 50 New Media & Society New Media 5 (2) (June): 203-230. doi:10.1177/1461444803005002004. The international encyclopedia of communication 48 . In addition to the extended content possibilities of the of possibilities content extended the to addition In . 23 , 2447. Malden MA: Blackwell 49 . While . CEU eTD Collection 52 Technologies the “democratizing potential of the internet might be exaggerated” as the discourse of asthe discourse the might be internet exaggerated” of “democratizingthe the potential republican/democraticthe party lines butalso the class and gender divisions. Concluding that topoi Nation magazineleftista major inthe author US. The found madeuse that users of frequent The website on the of comments perspective analysis discourse analyzeda critical from Goss 51 reminded users that “they do not own the place and have no right toit” censorship of their against perceived the moderators commentswith journalism, arguing of aform even expression or based on this freedom of to right of their asanexercise users consideredcommenting found that Robinson right. On the other earlier, importantly hand,as mentioned Most site. the to “stickiness” by increasing revenue journalists constantlycreate information andalsoas way for gathering, audienceto tool journalistic feedback, a them considered also they engagement, and building in community comments of importance always by privilege not Although journalists the publishers.the supported admitted a amendment, first the from stemming right democratic a commenting considered (wrongly) audience the that beingmost significant the audience, andthecommenting journalists the newsoutlet. an online-only newspaper atraditional newsroom thetransition to ethnography documented Robinson In of a effects their and comments II.2.User Idem, 138 Robinson, Sue. 2010. Traditionalists vs. Convergers. vs. Traditionalists 2010. Sue. Robinson, characteristic of the ideological discourse, to reproduce predominant ideologies along ideologies predominant reproduce to discourse, ideological the of characteristic 16, no.1 (February 1): 125 -143. 51 Her study reveals some basic differences between attitudes of attitudes between differences somebasic Herstudy reveals Convergence:The International Journal ofResearch into New Media 24 52 . CEU eTD Collection dialogue-fostering environment, corresponding to the online version of dialogue-fosteringin correspondingversion the online ‘bourgeois the café’ of environment, to Ruiz iscountry” our exclusionary arguments. “this and a threat being or interest foreign representing as minorities stereotypes, to referring comments thehate within categories largest three Dijk,by van the described direction the to point also analysis content the of results The Romania.” than minorities to rights offersmore in“nocountry world/Europe that the argument accepted recurring and readily 56 55 54 doi:10.1080/14616700701276117. of use high a indicates also analysis my preliminary that noting worth is it perspective analysis tobedefendedinnot criteria asbasic serve and argumentation.” 53 threat.” transgression, minorities the “preferred topics can be characterized by the concepts: of difference, deviance, the majority ofpeopleinto regarding belongingvan theAccording discourse Dijk to discourse. “immigrantsinstance suchasfor discourse racist element ideological especially and of are animportant are “burdenaccept conclusion” the to reason and asufficient asself-evident granted for are taken to our country” butdescribes Dijk Van as van Dijk “sociological in propaganda action” points out comments “augment day the of reproduction sociological to propaganda” even calling it also of anti-racist VanDijk Idem,.63 van Dijck, Teun A. Goss, Brian Michael. 2007. “ONLINE 2007. TUNES’.” ‘LOONEY Brian Michael. Goss, topoi et al in the discourse of comment sections of the Romanian newspapers, such asthe such newspapers, Romanian of the sections of comment in discourse the , Ideology and Discourse . analyzed whether online newspapers and their comments sections create a create sections andtheircomments newspapers online whether . analyzed Ideology and discourse A Multidisciplinary Introduction topoi 56 Although not analyze Idid from comments criticalthe discourse as standardized and publicizing ready-made arguments that“need arguments ready-made standardized andpublicizing as , 46. , 53 25 Journalism Studies . Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona. .53, 63 8 (3) (June): 365-381. 54 Constituting “premises that “premises Constituting 55 . Topoi CEU eTD Collection 60 59 U.K.: Cambridge University Press. case of Romania, for all newspapers in for all case of sample. the newspapers Romania, intellectual four the newspaper. As willrights property into is showthis chapter also true the responsible for content the of includingtheir comments legal liability,butceding all comment, or join propertya site rightsthey forimplicitly them. declinelegal while newspapers they forreserve comments, intellectual do the responsibility In fact the enterresearchers in a include models,media theirinto using organizations revealing users that UGCto production foundcontract that in mostwith cases publishers when users post a where they are Ruiz 58 (October 1): 463 -487. 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers.” 57 lawful and intelligent appropriate, remain, site the of areas participation community the that of interviewedan by Ruiz editor Inthewords mutual respect.” and freedom between speech of find “equilibrium an tryingto an mediaof aim create ethical organizations to environmentfavorable guidelines, todialogue and threefrom the polarized pluralistmodel (France, Italy, Spain). According totheir analysis Kingdom) and United the States, (United systems from liberal media newspapers from two mediatypein of participation different systems. Their was sampleof 16000 comments drawn different expecting and culture practices, journalism shape political systems that considers Mancini’s and Hallin on analysis their built also They argument. best the on based agreement and truth; for search cooperative coherence; and logic regarding rules of set in three Habermas by summarized ethics, discursive of principles the of presence the assess to comments of content the analyzed and participation user for habermasian public spheremodel Schafer, Ruiz et. al, Hallin, Daniel C, and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Ruiz, Carlos, David Domingo, Josep Lluís Micó, Javier Díaz-Noci, Koldo Meso, and Pere Masip. 2011. “Public Sphere et al ”. Bastard Culture. 59 .’s analysis of the legal frameworks points directionby to the frameworks oflegal points Schafer .’s analysis described the Public Sphere 2.0 et al 57 Comparing media systems . They examined ethical guidelines and legal framework .: “The aim of moderation is notcensorship, but ensuring 26 58 three media systems model, which : three models of media and politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics Cambridge, 16 (4) 16 60 of CEU eTD Collection Wiley-Blackwell. participants” expressed by the resistance to open up other stages to user participation, keeping stages other to open up resistanceby to participants” expressed the “active and not recipients” as“active members viewaudience isjournalists that research being widely theA most offereduser participation.of form of conclusion their cross-country with comments stage, interpretation role inthe most prominent have the Users interpreting. distributing, processing/editing, selection/filtering, access/observation, process: production product such newspaper websites” as product commenting on publiclyor thediscussing, news is that contained within aninstitutional media as journalismdiscussedin content defined generated thelabel this thesis of under participatory Vujnovic. 2011. 63 Wiley-Blackwell. about the role of audiences in the online newspapers online inthe roleabout the audiences of Vujnovic. 2011. 62 Singer deaf” venting typically without theirinusers engaging opinion dialogue. “dialogue being communities”,as their of the formed described participation “homogenous newspapers liberalmodel. in handOn the in other the model polarized the pluralist audiences in and characterized internal line byargumentation, characterizing the with dialogue pluralism in UK. US the of and debate” “communities sections: in comments of the user behavior model media audienceinMancini’s two The participation. resulted to systems types different ideological position of the newsroom. Moreover they also confirmed and extended Hallin alignedthe with weregenerally comments that methods.found They avoid to automated and is of usingarange theaudiencetactics speech as hate including derogatory content, moderate or usinghate insults methodsit like outright is profanity filters, automated quite hard to 61 in Ruiz comments of analysis The Singer, Jane B, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Alfred Hermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Singer, Jane B, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Alfred Hermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Ruiz al, et Ruiz “ processes processes of ordinary citizens contributinggathering, to selecting, publishing, distributing, et al Public sphere 2.0. . interviewed 70 journalists from leading newspapers of countries leadingdemocratic newspapers of from ten interviewed 70journalists . Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers et a 63 (p.15). identified (p.15). The authors stages five of news the l. revealed that while it is relatively easy to filter out filter to easy relatively is it while that revealed l. 27 : Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates : Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates 62 . They included. They ofuser thetype 61 . Boston [u.a.]: . Boston [u.a.]: CEU eTD Collection constraints remain the same, as Singer points out. ethical the but space as such constraints haveeliminated might online to move The comments. actually visitors of minority anddistorted studying asmost hardly authors found comments representative only that a feedback from immediate andinformation feedback audience. this isheavily the However represent they is that aspect important most the but errors, out pointing by accuracy improve sources, aspotential serve also can users view, of point journalistic the From advertisements. commentwho users as brand the to loyalty site, the to traffic increase tendthey motivations: commercial to return to sites, and also stay longer therefore being exposed to more Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates has changedConsensus in radically. their is thecountries study the organizations the that that Singer study the of According to moderator. the users or to assigned to which accordinghand users bypostingresponsibilities“authors are without comments thatgowith authorship” to Reich is an “intolerable situation” therefore responsibility has to be authors such as Deuze in the definition of online news sites quoted earlier. such news sites quoted online of as Deuzeinthedefinition authors Paulussen,Thorsten Quandt, ZviReich, and Marina Vujnovic. 2011. 68 67 66 65 64 of are inseparable”nature online news hybrid the content creating professionalusing“in content liketypography, elements graphical reality twotypesthe of and usergenerated separate of to web-designers efforts the contrary to that shows Reich content. professional with shared inspaces control maintain to tended journalists whereas playgrounds” “segregated creating more rules, relaxed to weresubject forums “atitarms length”. Thisis evidenced alsoby factthatplacesthe audience dedicated to such as Jane B. Singer: Taking responsibility (p.121) in Singer, Jane B, David Kim and Domingo,Hong cited Ari Heinonen,in Lee and AlfredJang Hermida, Steve Reich, 2011 Deuze, 2008 Reich, Zvi. User Comments: The transformation of participatory space. Singer et al, 2011 . Boston [u.a.]: Wiley-Blackwell. 66 et al 67 . media organizations maintain comments for comments maintain organizations media . 28 68 On the other hand the control over content over control the hand other the On Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers 64 already pointed out by already out pointed 65 On the other the On : CEU eTD Collection questioned the rights immigrantsof tobe in makingBelgium, totheir references inferiority or author by the analyzed posts the of Several right. democratic be their to it claim often speech forum alsoRobinson, orbloggersfound participants to posting that Cammaerts extremist situation is totally different if such speech is allowed in public places like news sites. news like places in public isallowed speech if such different istotally situation in it. for the Howevermy looks opinion speechif notspecifically hate of does one encounter individuals. like-minded between reinforcement opinion for more serves it forum, extremist asan such 73 72 71 Studies for genuinedeliberation ideal platform interethnic tensions inBelgium in North 2007. created actsthat criminal tothree reaction as community and Muslim the immigrants to propagatehate speechforum targeted to blogs anonline presentstheuse and Cammaerts of content” that for is responsible who yet knows “nobody be seems to thebook across consensus the but who responsible, canbecome then editor appear asan not to into moderate not order newspaperdoes avoid The to responsibility. According to Singer the “hands-off” approachresponsible for debate that (…) commentary on sitethe should upholdjournalistic standards”. prevalent in the United States we-re and we’rehosting adebate “It’s Post National Canadian the could of of an editor words be a way 70 69 Some journalists interviewed by Singer article. of the thepublication years after speech hate analysis shows, that on most of the websites in my sample itis possible findto user-generated concerns suchpost-publication to become responsible but forresponsible content, arenot post-moderate as the quick removal of offensive content. Contrary to their findings my Cammaerts, 2009 Cammaerts, Davies 1999:162 cited by Cammaerts, 2009 Coleman and Gotze 2001:17 cited by Cammaerts, 2009 Cammaerts, Bart. 2009. Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces. Idem, p. 134 12, no. 6 (November 1): 555 -575. 72 According to Cammaerts the fragmented nature of cyberspace prevents the prevents cyberspace of nature fragmented the Cammaerts to According 71 when the debate takes place in a dedicated space placein adedicated takes debate when the et al et 29 . assumed responsibility for responsibility . assumed in comments; the 70 As the author shows, while the internet is an 69 International Journal of Cultural 73 Similar CEU eTD Collection 846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189. p. 843 Presentation Format and Readers' Need for Cognition on Reality Perception. Reality on Cognition for Need Readers' and Format Presentation 76 75 846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189. Presentation Format and Readers' Need for Cognition on Reality Perception. Reality on Cognition for Need Readers' and Format Presentation 74 comment, 2,5 of actually percent readers while only about that show The authors readers. of perception the influencing article the with place same the in and directly present opinion of public assample can be that perceived comments context interactive new inthe however publicopinion, infer the about to content journalistic could use i.e.readers of climate general the indicator an as can serve reactions Others simultaneously. place news tothe takes andthereaction exposure the onlinenewspapers with time, and settings place indifferent and reading took in thatdissemination sense the experience andcommunication”. interpersonal interaction of mass the onnews sites an“unprecedented comments Lee andYangconsider athisplace” one calling them animals (rats) – enacting what Butler refers to the power of hate speech to “put climate from the news but from comments”. general the infer about longerno as people reality perception social of accuracy the “distort can comments newspaper that conclude authors .The environment” social their of make sense people how in changes indicated significant reaction others to “exposure fact that to the point Lee, E.-J., and Yoon Jae Jang. 2010. 2010 What Jang Do and Lee Others' in cited 2009 Reactions Hong, and to Kim News on Internet Portal Sites Tell Us? Effects of Lee, E.-J., and Yoon Jae Jang. 2010. What Do Others' Reactions to News on Internet Portal Sites Tell Us? Effects of 74 While traditionally newspaper reading was individualan 76 30 Communication Research Communication Research 75 the results of their experiment their of results the 37, no.6 (7): 825- 37, no.6 (7): 825- CEU eTD Collection 79 78 2054. Malden MA: Blackwell Pub. 77 people”. class or of aspecificgroup towards ridicule, threat expresses contempt, that aggression, verbal of “form a as speech hate defines Communication of Encyclopedia International The speech is in hate limitcombating a freedom essence of on expression. that fact the to linked and it surrounding controversies and arguments the of overview and an approaches mainlegal speech, the hate adefinition of presents The following chapter Chapter III.Hate speech and freedom ofexpression the more famous First Amendment cases is R.A.V. v. St. Paul, the case of teenager a white caseof Paul, the v.St. is R.A.V. cases Amendment famous First more the amendmentof Constitution the as bynumerousevidenced Supreme Courtdecisions. One of clauses” of byfreedom expression covered United States “even extreme racist the speech. In hate speech to legal approaches of basic types two are there Barendt to According is an exercise of freedom of speech and is rightly victims discriminate and degrade humiliate, terrorize, to potential with asweapons” “words of use the on focusing definition, similar a offers Communication Political of Encyclopedia The question. stringent a more legislation flourish” making kind wherethis of can spaces speech communication “new created internet the that out, points also Kinney thesis, this of topic the for importantly More expression. freedom of tothe implies limitations itbecause is speech difficult hate regulating However ourselves.” weperceive how affecting (…) thoughts our infiltrate eventhat if they andare untrue expressedby marginal they havegroups the “ability to A.it Kinneyconsiders that also includes all demean of kinds acts that degrade, and or believes Barendt, E. 2007. Rhea, David M. 2008. Hate Speech. In Kinney, Terry A. 2008. Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms. In 77 Although it refers to hate speech as verbal aggression the author of the entry Terry entry of the author the verbal aggression as speech hate itto refers Although Freedom of speech of Freedom 78 . . 2nd ed. Oxford;;New York: OxfordUniversity Press. p172 Encyclopedia of political communication 31 79 The international encyclopedia of communication , and therefore it is it, andtherefore by protected first the , 301. Los Angeles. Sage Publications. , pp. 2051, CEU eTD Collection 167-183. doi:10.1007/s10790-010-9200-x. 83 abhorrence” indicate to society the of the “right express speech free of limitations in case this therefore attitudes”, andgroups racist “lending to state leadtothe respectability speech would effectively hate is tolerating forthat a strong regulation argument adds that Barendt discrimination. non- and equality to right the of expression is the it essence In esteem. self their to injury and groups damage members from psychological guard of targeted social butto peace preserve to only not necessary be might speech free of limitations view Barendt’s In relative. thefreedom weights making andit rights other speech againsttherefore of protections, asLichtenberg In Europe (CDA) Decency Communications Act of toregulate1996 aimed internetpornography. Firstby With freedom it Supremethe Court. of regards to was expression on internet, the under Amendment concerns that the Court eliminated important segments of the 82 81 of a teenager who burnt a cross on a black family’s lawn 80 of base of ideasargument marketplace the at the stands This ismorehate speech”. speech to solution “best the that argument regulation speech adominant governmentthe or group in society leading main dislikes, tothe anti political speech, andOn the other hand Barendtarguments also warns, that hate speech, nomatter how despicable, is a kind of harmful. more it usedmaking thus to credibility, bansome it lending iteven it, to can reputation be easily used to ban its of some newspapertransferring mightlead tothe it is fact that tolerated and the newspaper, any other form of major of on site a the content of discriminatory presence The hatespeech. generated family in a cross a black of who burnt backyard the Sorial, Sarah. 2010. Free Speech, Autonomy, and the Marketplace of Ideas. Barendt, E. 2007. 2010 Cammaerts, in quoted Lichtenberg conviction the dismissed thus and regulation, aMinnesota overturned Court Supreme the case this In 185, p. 2007, Barendt, Freedom of speech of Freedom 82 . Here I argue that a similar effect could occur in the case of user of in case the occur could effect a similar that Iargue . Here 81 shows a social responsibility approach is more prevalent that prevalent more is approach responsibility social a shows . 2nd ed. Oxford;;New York: OxfordUniversity Press. p.174 83 32 which claims thatsuch andopinions beliefs 80 , and whose conviction overturned , andwhosewas conviction The Journal of Value Inquiry 44,no. 2(1): CEU eTD Collection 87 3535.2005.00405.x. p 217-218 86 Amendment 85 84 Brison areaccording to metaphor defendingimportant marketplace the arguments The most markets. financial of totheconcept of self-regulation similar regulation, beshould on bypassingforneed arguedagainstrational grounds, government rejected the and psychological harm psychological cause itcan actually but position a political of andmereexpression crime” “victimless Barendt considers, a group of persons with impunity, anything can alsobe done toit” that physical violence against groups. thetargeted As Parekh it, “if puts anything canbe said about the best argument utteringmightitof feelandexpression, those to gradually even could encouraged, resort for legitimate as if is freedom part of hatespeech that accepted banning hatespeech. Heconsiders hate speechgain access. cannot position regulation in already where aweaker minorities “the market” can ideas overrun simply majority’s the minorities, of is marginalization the to contributing thateven in power those and majority itthe benefit, to isis designed ideas” of “marketplace the notthat consider who argument Stefancic’s a “good” ideas ideas simply because supply.be inshort will is toDelgado This similar and easily happen just asin that themarketplace financial of ideas gets markets overrun by “bad” itminorities can against ideasaredirected “bad” the since speech. hate However of absurdity the show will society in ideas “good” of prevalence the that assumption the on based being Brison according intervention.is Ashortcoming to of government argument, marketplace the then better allowing isit longin still term the free causes speech of exercise the absolute harm whatever that holding both argument” slope “slippery the and in government” “distrust Barendt, 2007, p. 172, -174 Parekh, Bhikhu. 2006. “Hate Speech.” Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 1997. Brison (1995, quoted in Sorial, 2010) . New York: New York University Press. p. 89 87 , or as Matsuda said in her famous definition, these are “words that 85 Public Policy Research Policy Public Parekh presents a reverse ‘slippery slope’ argument for Must we defend Nazis? 33 12 (4) (February): 213-223. doi:10.1111/j.1070- : hate speech, pornography, and the new First 86 84 , CEU eTD Collection 90 89 88 wound” different from differentfrom general the free to right speech enjoyed byindividuals.AccordingBarendt to The protection of sources. is question confidential freedom whether pressisthe of in any way the instance for as such press the for provisions special the of benefit should who unclear boundary mass internet mediabetween the blurred anditis became the audience and now had broadcasting adventof the With accessto publishingor media, technology. newsletters) community radios, (pirate individuals and groups, few relatively as difficult so not was press Prior to internetthe era, delimitingindividual freedom of expression and the freedom the of internet and in content the generated general. approachinguser by regulators faced challenges the of overview short is a This section boundaries Blurring internet. onthe press of the Freedom III.1. show the “market” in question tends to be over flown by hateful ideas. will chapters next as the but ideas of a marketplace as sections comment imagine the could argument for the case of user-generated hate speech is that of Delgado and Stefancic Delgado speechisthatof hate for caseof the user-generated argument fittingliterature most Perhaps the approach. forthesis social the responsibility I argue in unacceptable limit freedom on the constitutes of this regulation expression, hate against is indeed a controversial As briefoverview andthis of it speech for variousthe hate arguments against show regulation issue. inposition toputthein addresseeback community attempting the of speakers, ‘his place’. While in the practice of the Supreme Court of the USA Delgado and Stefancic, Butler, Judith. 1997. Matsuda, 1989, cited in Barendt, 2007, p 173. 88 . Judith Butler considers that hate speech injures by questioning the addressee’s by the injuresquestioning speech hate that Butler considers . Judith Excitable speech :a politics of the performative Must we defend nazis , 88-89. 34 . New York: Routledge. p 4 90 ; we 89 CEU eTD Collection controlling and surveillance on the internet see. Morozov, 2011. However, in the case of user generated apparent content the content apparent generated user of case the in lack of gatekeepersHowever, 2011. is one of the mostMorozov, importantsee. features. of internet issue on the onthe more For media. surveillance and controlled most controlling the into fact in internet making administrators site providers, hosting 92 forums is wrong. free right inonline to speech protected have kind of some they that UGC users creating amendmentor similar free speechprovisions are notengaged,meaning thenthe assumption of rules apply. providers the istherefore actors byprivate net Barendtthe established According to people’s. Thus in other have to access and to their opinion toexpress rights have protected citizens where the case of streets tothe asan forum beopen similar should net treated is the whether question Another the United and speech pornography. hate inof regulation the specific problems create features these States asshows As Barendt borders. physical across accessed and can be published content factthat the other countries gatekeepers by professional as beingfiltered without well, content easeof the distributing in refers to case this immediate medium: the first nature of andthe immediate by global ismade the complicated internet of the Regulation in countries. some protection of issources to right the such a privilege grants some privileges media to institutions longisas asit in the for interest instancepublic emergedTherefore which athirdapproach itis toobjections. againopen to the mediabut immunities and grants privileges some special second The approach publishing technologies. why should thenajournalistbe from differentiated blogger oranyindividuala access with to and how is unclear it hand other the On public. general the to available not places documents, events, official to rights access instance for privileges, special need media the democracies in vital tofulfill inrole it their order be that can argued as rights media.However, the 91 issue. on this perspectives are three there the lack of gatekeepers refers to the perceived absence of control, in reality there are many gatekeepers such as ISP’s, Barendt, E. 2007. Freedom of speech of Freedom 92 . 2nd ed. Oxford ;;New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 417-424.) , while the global nature refers to jurisdictional issues caused by caused issues jurisdictional nature refers to , while global the 91 In the United States individuals have the same the have individuals States United the In 35 CEU eTD Collection doi:10.1080/13600861003644533. traditional media concepts to UGC providers. 95 94 93 mightexpect. expression and privacy one levels freefunctions, according of and toownership, forums,private private differentiated a moreBraman nuancedbetween quasi-public,quasi- adopts viewanddistinguishes public, news articles perfectly illustrate the legislators dilemma. While it can be argued that media bethat can argued While it dilemma. legislators the illustrate perfectly articles news platform leaving providers, formoment the UGC in agrey area. Hateful on comments online publisher or the Internet arebased. regulations media internet andearly Service Provider publisher,which editor, on hosting provider of categories certainty traditional the author, (ISP) models, cannotfurther readily challenges be to legislators.applied As UGCpresents hatespeech, online inregulating difficulties already the existing toto In addition Valcke UGC and Lenaerts show, it is difficult to identify access site legitimacy be inthe to can questioned. their order with accept them havenot to usersdo the andbecauseusually TOS, of the examination a detailed at evident becomes only consent implied handthis On other the andcommenters. readers both for site, the isimplied when accessing TOS of acceptance the the that shows as well,research Ruiz Fuchs, suchas authors of findings The in sample. sites of the TOS regulation.” It is this communication “defacto whichbecamea “de service (TOS), accept of providers terms the to has facto communicationgain one access to fact that bythe is complicated internet caseof the the that out points regulationalso role” in which handBraman of service.Ontheother functioning the for the ifnecessary they legitimate are I will examine the there should functions public theyserve since areprivately owned they although Braman According to be “some freedominas comments couldfit and café’sin restaurants this category similarly to offline world.the of news sites, such of spaces expression”forums. participatory The quasi-private arethe of categories these in these spaces, yet restrictions are also Valcke, Peggy, and Marieke Lenaerts. 2010. Who's author, editor and publisher in user-generated content? Applying Fuchs, Braman, Sandra. 2006. The political economy of google. of economy political The Change of state . Cambridge (Mass.) Ruiz al., Ruiz et InternationalReview of Law,Computers & Technology Public sphere 2.o. 93 For the purpose of this thesis the most important most the thesis this of purpose the For 36 ;;London: the MIT press., 93, 94 95 Therefore the existing two approaches, the approaches, two existing the Therefore 24, no. 1 (3): 119-131. et a l. 94 and my and CEU eTD Collection Europe. 96 online’ even if meansthis authorities crossing traditional jurisdictional boundaries is isillegal ‘what offline that illegal principle basedon the legislation adopt to tend worldwide regulators outthat points Rorive speech, hate online legislation about Reviewing the hate online III.2. Regulating being responsiblefor third party content. media merely organizations aspaceforprovided comments inas thehosting not model, thus that out pointing by themselves defend can they time same the at law, media national under as is for what on paper) (online bears publishedor ontheirpages organization responsibility full than risking lengthy judicial than hand,On theRorive inEurope. thatrisking this processes other admits service, of terms their under covered they are generally which for content, hateful remove to incentives more had inEurope interests economic with companies hosting US example For law. of matter private speech a hate bymaking protection Amendment First the circumvent to tool effective be an to out turned Directive the In practice servers. their on content hateful tolerate to not for ISPs incentives economic creating thereby policy down’ take and ‘notice under fora ISPs alimited Suchdirective liability instituted regulate content. was notto aim direct its although effective was more (2002) on E-commerce Directive The European Amendment madethat the US asafehaven for online hatespeech andworldwide. hategroups because in be First this hasproven mostly the of practice online. to ineffective However 2001 Convention on Cybercrime contains an additional hatecriminalizingprotocol speech Rorive, Isabelle. 2009. What Can Be Done Against Cyber Hate? Freedom of Speech Versus Hate Speech in the Council of Cardozo Journal ofInternational & Comparative Law 37 17, no.3 (October): 417-426. 96 . The . CEU eTD Collection harassmentargumentcould be invalidedas forced are not togousers thereand thesimple the websites of in case is that hate online fighting in difficulty another Biegel to According the accordingwhichtrend to “society nolonger tolerates open expressions of prejudice.” biggestdangerforum. the is of Therefore online view hate in itcould author’s that the reverse express viewsperceived tend to that they in anonymity, people hesitate would public other of their so because more even but can bedisseminated content such which speedon to the due only not that aredifferent spaces the online However asBiegel shows (p.324). conduct” shouldon inappropriate some hateful, streets be level the or tolerate able to of aggressive, tolerate just walking be as“people to peopledangerous, shouldable butalso something that online is is Moreover hate harassment” only viewed not less “discriminatory disputed. as environment” but hostile he“discriminatory a alsocreating disability”, and shows orientation sexual sex, religion, that online hate is hard to addressIn Biegel’s terms onlinehate refers “words to asthat discriminate on eventhe basis of race, ethnicity, the definition of group. a orientation certain to of target the on ethnic/religios/sexual appartenance the is asit long based as with violence threats to insults from ranging of content types both speech for hate analysis term contentuser generated includesunderthe including codebook the thesis this throughout definition My injury”. physical to lead may that threats personal explicit 98 websites. extremist dedicated and forums, discussion on email, through harassment as behaviors” 97 includes intimidation, “online thatconstitute activities insult” ridicule or which conduct” in into Biegel category his the online hate “inappropriate view of places censorship. economic private for incentives created iteffectively because with reservation be treated should and is problematic also approach Idem, p.321 Biegel, Stuart. 2001. 98 He differentiates it explicitly from “threateningbehavior”, which refers to “direct, Beyond our control? Cambridge (Mass.); London: the MIT press. p. 86, 38 97 and also “hostile also and CEU eTD Collection means of they tohate.inadvertedly comments are exposed the site access itlooking for other, legitimate and professionally produced content but by of as visitors is different situation the hatespeech, in of user generated case that believe the knowledge of existence of enoughsuch sites is discrimination. not constitute to However, I 39 CEU eTD Collection to both the legitimate content and the hate-speech. andthe content legitimate the to both an LGBT parade) it relies on the topic of the host to attract members of the target community avideo about minority or an article about (e.g. education group for thetarget istopic relevant whose articles/content to attached bybeing Furthermore much wideraudience. a can reach By mainstream for look purposefully that content. sitesitare usually who people parasitizing from the general audience and uses mainstream sites to reach it, while the readers hate-sitesof isit attargets isthat aimed blogs/forums/sites hate itfrom dedicated differentiates that content such of characteristic An essential press. the regarding regulation of lack the especially free speech protecting theprovisions or journalist/audience public/private, of delimitations hatespeech media andof blurring policy:i.e.anonymity, content, regulations generated of user weaknesses the alsoexploits It in a virus. victims as the itto that transmits one host such as an interactive website/UGC platform to exist as a parasite, but also the hostis the a needs it characteristics: viral and some parasitic displays content audience. Such its target reach to and be published to platforms hosting content public, or thegeneral toward oriented websites, of features interactive of the takesadvantage that term) sexual,as (in and/or racial ethnic groups well as of professional, usersaimed anonymous atintimidating harming and/or minority particular gaps in media bynon- multimedia), created audio, video, (text, speechascontent hate generated define user regulationof them, I takingargue that it has in both it beincluded could Although content andhatespeech. conceptof the user-generated advantagesome specific features Based from both features definition generatedhatespeech on includes above,the of the user orthat justifyexploiting the creation of a newcontent label. I definition A preliminary Chapter IV.User-generated hate speech 40 CEU eTD Collection 100 99 control editorial was instances with different rights and responsibilities. According to Braman one of the most visible Traditionally media andtelecommunications used tobe under regulatory different systems convergence Media considerations Theoretical media discrimination. and regarding be followed by an overview of Romanianlegislationthe and regulatory environment approaches to media regulation: statutory,market control and public responsibility, which will differentregulators by digitization and convergence i.e. the possibility of accessing the same content on platforms,internet. or press to the directly refers nonethem of However hate speech. in casesof canbeapplied refer or laws that in thisseveral has Romania currently that revealed legislation existing of review preliminary My case print and online. environment IV.1 Regulatory Then I present the most important categories no longer fit empirical realities”. Dwyer shares a similar view considering that it is it that viewconsidering a shares similar Dwyer longerrealities”. fit no empirical categories legal “inherited the so today all three, across easily travel messageto same allow the and Digitization intelecommunications.” prohibited technological anddevelopments other Romania, Govt. Ordinance Govt. Romania, Braman,Sandra. 2006. Change of state 137/31 Aug. 2000., Art. 317 of the Penal Code,Law 107/2006. 99 The introductory part of this section illustrates challenge illustrates posedto the of section this Theintroductory part 100 . Cambridge (Mass.) , which “unlimited inwas constrainedprint, in broadcasting, 41 ;;London: the MIT press. p.68 CEU eTD Collection 103 Research 102 in Romania Regulatory framework discrimination referthat “all to kindpublic of including behavior” the press. apply lawsto tobereluctant regarding seem speechas hate the authorities the user-generated self-regulationto in model,as successfully publicthe responsibility a feature exploited by behavior preferable. In Romania, as the next pages will show, the printed press is left entirely Healsoappeal good mechanismsless accountability chillingand thatreward effect. considers more of courts accountability create to asmore alternatives unified ones, than desirable” more are regulations conflicting andeven “diverse, overlapping that considering opposite, McQuail makes an againstexplicitargument regulatory convergence, arguingits for exactly this model be consideredweak,asitcould onthewilldepends tocomply.of companies and publicinterest, implementing holding media free toaccount.” is framework, forregulation consideredbyMcQuailthe“most suitable expressing and equate goodcontent.covering Finally high public not responsibility,profitdoes the self trust marketbehavior.it comesmarketcontrol: theory basedon that products Secondly disregards controls such as statutory regulations limiting media freedom, aiming to coerce some kind of According to McQuail there are three media accountability frames. media accountability McQuail three are there to According Media accountability 101 media silos” for opening the eachmedium argues “old upthe longer totreat separately and no adequate McQuail, Accountability of Media McQuail, Dennis. 2005. Accountability of Media to Society: Principles and Means. In Dwyer, Tim. 2010. , 89-102. Sage. 101 . Media convergence . Maidenhead ;;New York: McGraw Hill/Open University Press. p.14 42 103 Communication Theory & However, he admits that admits he However, 102 The first is legal is first The CEU eTD Collection social origin, age, disability, chronic uncontagious disease or HIV/AIDS infection is punishable by prison from 6 months to 3 to 6 months from translation prison by non-official punishable is fine."personal or infection year HIV/AIDS or wealth, disease convictions, uncontagious chronic apartenece, disability, political age, origin, orientation, sexual social gender, religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, of race, grounds 107 106 105 being comments “public thatcanreasonably beconsideredas as considered to referring also be can it therefore law”; penal the of effect the under enter not does that behavior public “any to if refers that specifies discrimination against Ordinance Government the hand other the On press or requirements for such instigation to be done in instigation hate” ispublicto punishablewithout byimprisonment, specifying any for the exemptions or under certain conditions. legislationprotection includedcurrently According inthecivilcode. the Penal to Code “the some limitations imposed on pressthe under the general libel, defamation and privacy are There legitimacy. national claim could that bodies self-regulatory any nor domain this authorities in state competent press, online or legislation printed the on is no there Currently industry. telecom of the statistical records date, from licensing,keeping protectionmobile phone upto consumer competition, to for Management in andRegulation Communications deals that (ANCOM) issues with ranging Authority by National is regulated the including internet, the sector, The telecommunications sanctions. 104 forbidden.” is regimes communist any kind, and the denial,minimization or apologetic presentation of the crimes of the nazi and programmes containing anykind xenophobicanti-Semite,of discrimination manifestations, of of any “thebroadcasting stating that: provisions also anti-discrimination contains that media. of field the established National the Audiovisual Council (CNA) as solethe authority with attributions in that Audiovisual the on law is the media with dealing legislation Romanian main The Article 317 chapter 4, of the Penal Code (modified in 2006) "Instigation to discrimination. The instigation to hate on hate to instigation The discrimination. to "Instigation 2006) in (modified Code Penal of the 4, chapter 317 Article Romania, Romania, Romania,. Decision nr 220 of 24 February of the National Audiovizual Council (CNA),art. 47 Decision nr 220 of 24 February, 2011 of the National Audiovizual Council (CNA Legea audiovizualului(Audiovisual Law.) 104 The CNA elaborates and periodically revises a media content code 106 The council also decides on financial or administrative or financial on decides also council The Law nr. 504 of 11July,2002 43 ) . 107 105 CEU eTD Collection harms the dignity of a person, group, community in connection with their race, nationality, in community with theirrace, connection group, harms dignity a person, of the or against, atmosphere offensive or humiliating hostile, degrading, intimidating, an creating has of anybehavior as that purpose propaganda, or nationalist-chauvinist or has the character explicitly butitis formulated in includea way itto by “anypublicbehavior prohibiting: that speech hate to refer not does of discrimination”, kinds all “combating dignity, personal Article2000 15of OrdinanceGovernmentnr.137/31August (republished) abouttheright to regarding hatespeech Legislation requirements. ethical behavior, 48percentalso confessingbeing of not familiar with any deontological a self andbelievewhile only increase would that adeontology 34 percent code regulation A majority 70 percentevenof agrees apresslawthat would quality improve journalism of that there are no journalists of sufficientconsidering journalists themselves self-regulation,In Romania 54percent areskeptical about credibility to be elected in self-regulation organism.that theoretically would also include the press. named by Parliamentthe with responsibilities in monitoring and sanctioning discrimination http://www.activewatch.ro/uploads/FreeEx%20Publicatii%20/Autoreglementarea%20presei%20din%20Romania.pdf.,35 press inRomania Romania), and IMAS Public opinion resarch agency.2009. 110 109 108 (CNCD) Council Anti-Discrimination National the established usually ashatespeech makes no thepress. for described exceptions and same The ordinance discrimination” of kinds all “combating – legislation The behavior”. ActiveWatch Media Monitoring Agency,Centrul Pentru Jurnalism Independent (Center for Independent Journalism - Discriminarii Combaterea pentru National Consiliul Article 15 about the right to personal dignity,of Government Ordinance nr.137/ 31August 2000 (republished . Survey. ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency (Romania), October. 110 Autoreglementarea presei inRomania -Self regulation of the 44 109 as an autonomous body 108 refers to content CEU eTD Collection Chapter 2, Article 6. 112 main articles the on page. to with comments compared was portions these on participation the forum sections dedicated have that four websites Onthe policies. moderation and apparent content, professional the existence of registration requirements, the positionanalysis includesterms andconditions use for the of site,forthe guidelines userparticipation, of comments in the page in relation to This section presents a comparative analysis of participative features on the five websites. The thewebsites on participation user of analysis IV.2. Comparative tocrimes refersby Jewishpopulation.Holocaust committed the exclusively Germany against that inthe comments appears thatalso discourse inanti-Semite theme frequently occuring a of lawthe to because effect the itextends is important clarification This Romania. against the Jewish andRoma population by done Nazi Germany includingits allies, and formulas”. The ordinance also public use of "fascistclarifies and racist symbols" xenophobic includingslogans, orgreeting that definition of Holocaustpenalizes with imprisonment refers bothto theacts “public committed denial Holocaustdenial ofwas criminalized in2002by OrdinanceGovernment 31/2002 the Holocaust and its effects” and the fall under the provisions of this legislation. there are quite alarge number of comments on the websites included in the sample that would ethnicity, religion, social category, conviction or sexual orientation.” Parliament of Romania. Parliament Law Nr. 107 of 27 April 2006 www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=64075&frame=0. . 45 111 As my research shows research my As 112 and CEU eTD Collection 113 indefined a dictionary. obscenewords certain or offensive filters out in that place filter aprofanity have moderation post- use that sites other two the adevarul.ro of exception the with hand, other the On control. effectively theirjournalisticopen spaces audience to participation with very low level of meaning earlier,they placement that intheintegrate approach presented contributions Three of the five sites discussed sitethe used before.post-moderation in this study rely turning off commenting functions in case of sensitive switching stories or pre-moderation to if on post-moderation, reported somea degree editors that to hate-speech” thelineinto “often cross comments and also allow user inforrecorded andIsrael,storiesregarding orethnic religious where tensions, Germany were lowest be arelikely 60-90percent rates published.The to of comments authors the post-moderation is requiring usersregister. According to tothe journalistsinterviewed by the incomponent thecaseof Animportant moderating privileges. even begranted directly or users” can while or“trusted post will “super-users” be moderators, content by reviewed comments according “reputation”: to of have comments who users atrack-record of abusive Another approach entails beremoved.linkusers and tracking publishing their then whichwill content” abusive “areport click on to option the have typically users features: collaborative moderation inpolicies that countries.other Post-moderation involves someusually have stricter legislation hate-speech holocaust denial and nazi-past, newspapers duetothe pre-moderation and post-moderation. management strategies: by identified main two study etal. The comment Singer cross-country Moderation policies Singer et al, Participatory Journalism 107 113 Pre-moderation is typical in Germany, where Germany, in istypical Pre-moderation 46 CEU eTD Collection 115 magazine.eu/burial-plans-of-pro-nazi-poet-sparks-hungary-romania-row_211590.html. 114 performed 8 February on similar test article. of the topic the were noton but sentences full contained that those even refused, On the other hand on the two sites that moderators of use sitethe of forcensorship notpublishing their comments. pre-moderation the accused users also moderation, and suggesting atext with werereplaced comments all of the testsome that revealed analysis comments content as the adevarul.ro on in place filter or moderation were is kind of there some However filter”. of profanity the atest saying “this was comment a also but article other from randomly taken a text or comments non-sense even and words insulting with comments all allowed which adevarul.ro on in place filter profanity no was This filter alsorefused if entirethe comment itcontained an insulting unmodified There word. a after inserted in space itit, was although still astheinsulting was clearly recognizable word. to-bypass filter profanity is in which place on evz.ro allowed referring the Hungariansword to itafterpublishedby insertingwas slightlyA adot letter. after first the altered similarly easy- Hungarians referringgay was referring andalso theword Roma to minorities, words to and it left thatin was filteredderogatory profanity filter indicate However the two out. place Hungarians andanother referringreferring toJewishpeople to was byan“*” replaced to Hungary and Romania. between tensions diplomatic sparked that poet aHungarian of re-burial the about articles a second stepthesame usercomments was name used topost with insulting to epithets by sentence “Iposting the am commenting” first [email protected] address email fictional a and Ion name the using comments posting by minorities. 22-23May,2012 referring on insulting Thetests were performed epithets to by that only contained filters sites weretested comments the posting The profanity of for screen captures of the profanity filter test see appendix… see test filter profanity the of captures screen for Anon. “Burial Plans of pro-Nazi Poet Sparks Hungary-Romania Row |.” 114 On gandul.infoa comment containing afrequently insultused th 2012 on 2012on sitesthe gandul.info, adevarul.ro andevz.ro, (comentez) 47 which was posted on all three sites. In Europe Online . http://en.europeonline- 115 A CEU eTD Collection 118 117 116 minority memberscan directedagainst situation users agreeing with number of comments the of its discussion the isefficiency reduced in hatespeech: in preventing a majority-minority civility overall the in maintaining effective isquite moderation of type this Although visible. remaining line title their only hidden be will negative turned total whose comments the of text and the comments to votes negative and positive give can site the of Users moderation. community moderation requires registration in order to be able to participate in the even notusing for those post-moderation, although Singer as sample, in the sites the of any on comments posting for requirement registration no is There harmful. speech,thus of hate thetargets to recognizable whichbe still will words, excluded alteration of the bypass even with a slight easy to needsbecomes human supervision; itfine otherwise dictionary and constant updating, tuning While it can prevent the flooding of the site with obscenity and hate, in order to be efficient its moderation. computerized of the illustration weaknesses the of good isit a generalization, of base the form cannot it therefore once, only performed was test above the Although discussion. the to a contribution not is it that shows itself username the and comment the if even comments post and jurnalul.ro the content provided by newspapers. provided by contentthe the site in sample,this potentially and to reach audiences millionsof of drawnby visitors unique every of spaces participatory the to access gain to enough is address email an of syntax the knowing Therefore validity. its check not do but comments post to address email an require moderationelementan important when relyingonpost for an overview of the print an online audiences of the sites in the sample see table 2. Singer et al., et Singer excluded from the final sample Participatory Journalism 116 revealed that it is enough to know the syntax of an email address in order to , 83. 118 Hotnews.ro 48 117 the only site in the sample that uses that sample in the site only the . According to my tests the sites et al . pointed out registration is registration out pointed . CEU eTD Collection layout techniques to create a distance between the professional user-generated and the professional the between adistancecreate to techniques layout or use design not do sites the adevarul.ro of exception the with box. However text different using instance for separated design/typograhical by being techniques, comments placed in a 119 user participation. to approach placement” “integrate in an order chronological reverse or a chronological in journalists by written onarticles the same pagewith the comments user inplace All sites sample the the page in the Placement ofcomments can labeledthat speech. be as hate comments contain also pages their show will analysis content the of results the as However be before they have by moderator are published. i.e. approved a comments to moderation use pre- that sites two are the and romanialibera.ro hotnews.ro earlier As mentioned itas discriminatory.reported have I although site the on remained content homophobic violent even that confirmed evz.ro it. on inas offensive My toremovebe test not enoughusersorder might acomment reporting i.e.filed have been there numberreports of ifa pre-defined a human moderator to comment a for usedactivity only actually will controllingspeech,report user software the asusually reportinginmoderation is This thatcontribution. of community type weak also hate case of for provide reason the to have linkhewill this comment” the”report a user chooses If site. users have an option either to vote for a comment or to report it to the administrators evz.ro On negative. is total of the iftheir even visible remain comments but adevarul.ro on possible is also comments against or for Voting content. discriminatory allowing still thus higher be Singer et al., et Singer Participatory journalism , 103 119 The user-generated and the professional content are content professional the and user-generated The 49 CEU eTD Collection agrees to the TOS. the to agrees the sample that states in the posting from damages resultingis Hotnews.ro againstsuch any legal content. theonly actions in site interface that by clicking warns for they bearthe including usersthat they content the entire responsibility for publish on the “send” button the user lateralsothe hotnews.ro; on messagesand aredisplayed Similarwarning gandul.infodeleted. containing language, licentious orinstigating tohate, racism,xenophobia, homophobia willbe messages that users cautioning interface commenting the is on placed message anda warning ishowever oneof uses this inthesamplefor that sites pre-moderation romanialibera.ro; the they are placed on the bottom of the front page and with small fonts. I could not as indentify to locateare difficult guidelines these feature Asageneral for content. responsibility a TOS whichservice guidelines also regarding contain provisions (TOS), intellectual property and of terms or use of conditions in and down terms set are rules these exceptions With two from speech pages. hate their theoretically excluding content violent insulting or obscene, xenophobic, discriminatory, of posting the prohibit explicitly sample in the newspapers All guidelines (TOS) orethical and conditions Comparison of terms page to reach the comments making them avoidable for those who whish so. the down move actively to have users content: of types two the separating thereby box posting recommendations of other articles under the professional content and also the comment the same screen withoutmoving (scrolling) further down the page. 120 amongst the first comments. is content theirif such will speechagainst hate there to areexposed end the until article content, the first comments being visible from the end of the article i.e. users who read an For an example see annex …with a derogatory word referring to hungarians placed rightunder the article and visible in 120 The designers of The placedthelinksand designers of adevarul.ro 50 CEU eTD Collection 122 Hotnews.ro).” http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-general-5447989-termeni-conditii-utilizare-site-ului-hotnews.htm.121 site.” onthe they are posted from moment the Hotnews.ro property of the “becomes forum andsections comment the the 2.2. Art. of TOSofstatesthe unambiguouslyhotnews.ro all that publishedby content at users user content property rights and generated for intellectual Responsibility the moment the user is accessing the site as a warning that the site also contains potentially contains also site the that awarning as thesite is accessing user the moment the although it assumes implicit consent to relinquishing legal claims, it does not appear before or isthat of this aspect problematic Another site. the of users/readers the mightcause to it harm forincluding commercial it the forits right any use responsibility declines property and the words,other although sitethe retains the full property forrights usergenerated content site”. for aspects regarding all the in useof this bythelaw immunity the degreeallowed couldandandfrom grant claimsevz.ro its you agreeto evz.ro full owners/partners with indecent,offensive, repulsive, andyou agreeto give upany legal rights orreparationsyou that visitors that “by using evz.ro you acknowledge thatyou expose yourself contentto that can be contains a disclaimerchannel concerning and the harms creation causedallincludingto his reproduction, transformation, the for content on retransmission any of toderivate users by works”.any contentadds by that on posting sitethe content the user an grants “irrevocable andunlimited license Evz.ro of the also is site the but property, thesiteintellectual and onlyresponsibility warning regarding same the exactly almost site in the sample thatthe also comments thus the potential of intellectual bythat timeproperty the if published, were they legal although consequences” benefitseventual and comments his of content the for alreadyresponsibility sole bears “user the that explicitly belongs to the site. The posted by declines any forTOSparagraphs whereby content Hotnews.ro responsibility users stating of evz.ro are evz.ro. “Terms and Conditions for Evz.ro (Termeni Si Conditii > EVZ.ro).” http://www.evz.ro/termeni-si-conditii.html. Hotnews.ro. “Terms and Conditions of Use of the Hotnews.ro Website (Termeni Si Conditii De Utilizare a Site-ului 121 At the same time the terms and conditions has two entire two has conditions and terms the time same the At 51 122 In CEU eTD Collection cenzura-opriti-guvernul-satajabil-asa-nu-niciodata.htm. Impotriva).” http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-12103841-live-text-ora-9-00-parlamentul-dezbate-supune-vot-motiunea- and 9 Against (Guvernul Ungureanu a Picat. Motiunea De Cenzura a Fost Aprobata Cu 235 De Voturi Pentru Si 9 123 more than views50000 (53778) 300 views while the article had only section forum inthe that dedicated fifteen posts no wereonly of confidence, there on the same topic AprHotnews.ro, on 27 on the front sample, inthe forum popular page most the on even instance For sites. of main the on comments had 221 comments the than smaller incomparably almost are numbers and participation the is that sample the across forums these of characteristic Ageneral of site. the by theadministrators created usually are some topics although discussion, the freedom inshaping a greater topics, enjoying thus discussion open users can registered of romanialibera.ro exception the With registration. comment inisit asa somecases without checked,although also alsopossible to “guest” is address the and in places, tocommentthese inorder address email with register a real to decision accessto by them clicking on their links.major Another difference is usershavethat adeliberate take haveto site the of visitors/readers content, from professional the separated being by is that articles the to comments the and forum the between difference main The from main site. the separated sections forum have dedicated also websitessample in Four the forums and comments on Participation dedicated already upany gave for seeking harm rights against reparations caused by site.the he earlier terms quoted the to according read it, to chance the has user the time Thus by the Quite the contrary, the warningpreventing the visit as,for site of the example similar of warnings do. sites pornographic is part of the TOS locatedharmfulprovide material not and does the possibility by decliningof the agreement on the bottom of the front page. Hotnews.ro. “The Ungureanu Government Has Fallen. The Motion of No Confidence Was Approved with 235 Votes for th , 2012 when governmentthe , 2012when of a voteRomania was dueto dismissed 123 . The same is true for MyAdevarul, the forum of 52 CEU eTD Collection Kaufer’s argument when those who desired to address mass audiences also had to assemble had to also audiences mass address to desired who those when argument Kaufer’s from earlier even media model or presented “old” the individual website similar toone’s exposure that’s forumsavailable regardsthe mainsite.the Inthese on in discussions are the descriptiontitle, interesting an having by or participants discussionand readers their attract to have also they starter, which have considerably smallermight audiences.Users have possibility the to open their own topic but prove to be difficult they foralso users, freedom offer forums greater Although later. of the exposure increased without the addedarticles extra might suggest that to forums thecomments to thecompared dedicated of popularity thelow In myopinion users who comment on the main site are drawn there due to foruser responsible comments? is the TOS:who Consequences of the than 200 comments only hours after itwas published. an article on the main site about the communist past of a member of the government had more five days earlier and the most debated topichad only 118 comments in total.At the same time hadevz.ro in around300comments May commenttotal,was latest 23, 2012the on posted forum of The had site main onthe 61comments. while asimilararticle minister?”, prime as nominate will you president the thinkdo “who question the to readers responded where 13 OnAprilRomanialibera.ro. “question active 27,2012the ofthe day” topic the was only on openedof (meaning all discussion The operators the site the shouting).topics case in upper written contributions also but comments homophobic or rasist obscene, site, MyAdevarul has detailed behavior guidelines for forum,on the (netiquette) forbidding main the on commenting for aTOS identify not could I Although site. main in the sections thatonlyadevarul.ro, had53 comments on Mayfar less 23, 2012 then on commentthe 53 CEU eTD Collection in an IP address which will in turn require another court order to get the connection togetthe connection and order another court inturn require will in IPaddress which an result only this would but from site, the data access the obtain would to beneeded order court identify name.Firsta behind just person nick/user orders the to the court wouldneed several comments for the hold accountable Apersonseeking users to internet. of the characteristics legal from and of comments, nature the resulting technical complicated the the process anonymous the hardly due to enforceable is however responsibility this sites. Inpractice bearpresented for users inthissection full contentthey the through publish responsibility TOS the to according In theory responsibility. effective bears nobody which for readers of millions potentially reaching content forResulting inmedia them.nobody is accountable a gray where into area comments placing property, one’s for isone responsible that principle earlier relinquishing and all benefits, rights the confirming Schafer’sandFuchs’sview presented it forit freeorganization, contentand with responsibility the while providingbearing all by media the exploited fact usersarein side on one is that approaches these of The result declining any disadvantages. potential appropriate it, copyrights forthe including right the potential tothe financial benefits while contentis italthough usergenerated for theiras they themselves accountable property consider not do organizations media hand other the On it. for accountable held being ever registration requirementslack of by anonymity the the provided for theircomments, full responsibility bear the allows them to users shows, five of sites the TOS of the analysis Although asthe media the organizations. publish all kinds of contentusers who know the syntax of an email address can have mass audiences readily withassembled by very low without needthe risk “toassemble anaudience” or even haveinteresting something tosay all of 125 124 theirpublic own Schafer, Kaufer, 125 The Influence of Expanded Access . At the same time the attitude of the media organizations contradicts the basic ethical the contradicts mediaorganizations the of At attitude . thesametime the Bastard Culture, 168. 124 . Comments to the articles on the other hand eliminate this requirement, Fuchs, PoliticalEconomy of Google , 155. 54 . CEU eTD Collection short, the answer to the question posed in the title of this segment is: in answershort, the questionposed nobody. the the title inpractice of to segment this while personsharmedhave bysuch almostnopossibilitycontent in getting remedies. In extentthe allowed by sites the canalsowho financial from benefits gain participation user lead in asituation section presented in speech allmannerhate to userscan this where post of models participation Romania the discrimination, legislation that has adequate regarding fact sum the incafés.To up despite available as those such from a publicconnection comment a identify speech forwhoregularindividual seeking hate to auser reparations posted the perspective of citizens andaccessfortheir connection from subscribersandusers,whichishighly data problematic rights to privacy.steps require thatMoreover both the news site and theit ISP trackwould These country. the of from outside accessed thesite andcomment hateful the userposting the keep detailedbe almost records (logs) of impossiblethe if further be complicated The process can Provider. Service from Internet the data subscriber for a 55 CEU eTD Collection profession on what is understood underisprofessionencyclopedic hatespeech. understood on what The were two definitions as as communication the well in leastat academia a general agreement reflect encyclopedias inthetwo inmy definitions the controversy opinion to hate speech issubject term Encyclopedia of PoliticalAlthough Communication.meaning exactand the definition the of the and Communication of Encyclopedia International the communication, of field inthe major encyclopedias two from academicdefinitions I havethe instead content used Since the sites donotprovidedescription or definitions for what they mean by discriminatory legislation discrimination and anti- policies participation ofsites effectiveness Codebook: Assessing chapter. first in the a methodology described to according comments and sample of articles assembled a assess the effectiveness of both the legislation and the ethical guidelines of the sites I have no definition on eitheris but there hate, or violence instigate xenophobic, hateful, discriminatory, thatare comments of the sites about bedisallowing on aconsensus groups. There seems belonging to target rapeof to persons whator exactly is meant forof but containing murder the orevencalls threats violence comments also extreme insults, by these terms. In order the presence sections reveals thecomment analysis of preliminary a superficial even However to sample the in forbid the sites posting of such messages eitherin guidelines, TOSorwarningdistinct the messages. all Additionally, legislation. Romanian existing the in regulations of includedregarding hate is speech, under content term discriminatory the prohibited by a range law adistinct isnot there factthat the despite shown, have sections previous two As the ofComments Analysis IV.3. Content 56 CEU eTD Collection 126 codebook. the discrimination from against legislation Romanian the extendeddiscrimination definition of the with Romania, Government Ordinance 137/31.08.2000 126 resulting in the following definition of hate speech that formed in speech resulting thefollowinghate that definition baseof of the 57 CEU eTD Collection 131 130 129 128 127 laws mentioned earlier this type of discriminatory argument is against the Constitution of Constitution the is against argument discriminatory of type this earlier mentioned laws traditions or even exist inminoritiesbelonginglegitimacy have to no keep language, askfor rights, their customs to and the territory of the country. grounds majoritythe is group rightful “owner”the of countryandthe therefore people Beyond the three anti-discriminationthat invalidatetheme in the commentsminority thatRomanian legislation,was and the academic definition labeledas well. Forinstance a frequently occurringgroups “exclusion/this were developed of elements definitionabove from ontheexisting andaregrounded the claims is our country” for refers their definitions in and codebook the coding rights protocol in Appendix 2.These subcategories to comments or evenin sectionsin ofhatewith speechwhicharepresented types detail comments the occurring ask for hateinto earlier presented The definition 23subcategoriesof expanded to referring wasthen their expulsiongroups”). on the distort thehistory targeted of denialholocaustto and lawcriminalizingthe (“seeking hate of instigation regardingto Penal includingthe earlierprovisions Code presented the laws addressed by the three discriminatory content incorporates The above definition Romania, Article 317 of the Penal Code of Romania Art. 2 of OUG 137/31 Aug. 2000 International Encyclopedia of Communication, 2007:2051 Encyclopedia of Politicalcommunication, 2007:301 131 Law Nr. 107 of 27 April 2006. sexual orientation, national origin, orgender; threaten,abuse, degrade, humiliate, terrorize, to aimed speech containing Comments ridicule, demean, and discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, about an about out-group’s alleged negative behavior. group epithets consisting usually ofshort, negative labels lengthy or narratives includingAlso based pejoratives and group that sometimes insults, brief comprise groups. maintain targeted illusions about ethniccultural, derogatory and racial, to distort supportingviolence;contempt, seeking promotingdiscrimination,or prejudice and the history of targeted groups, to eliminate their agency, to create and economic, social and cultural and any other domains of the public life fundamentalof freedoms, or of recognizedrights by law, in political,the limiting recognition, use or exercise in conditions of equality, of human rights, and hasrestricting, of effect isor the aimed that criteria, other andany appartenance group based on preference or restriction exclusion, be differentiation, any 58 128 Discrimination is to considered Discrimination 127 expressing prejudice, and expressingprejudice, 129 . 130 CEU eTD Collection 133 132 realities and most frequently the and themes occurring attitudes. on the basis of the existing legislation and it is also taking into consideration the social academic definitions intosubtypes making it easier toidentify such content, but itis also built could in moderation,that codebook beusedasatool only for asnot the itpractice expands a create to was intention my Thirdly content. such of presence the allows that policy sporadically,occurs itbutis quite an extended phenomena pointing toaloophole inthemedia not only typecontent media sphere,this of into entire the and the of public such content presence the in prevent should that theory guidelines andethical legislation despite show that to intended also I hand other the On speech. hate of definition the into falling content restrain needwithout the mediaidentify of additional regulation beused andcould efficiently to to legislation Romanian existing the that show to was my intention First threefold. is analysis for content based atool itas these sources and using The creating on acodebook of purpose subtypes. surveys of denial the CNCD havelaw Holocaust criminalizing aforementioned tothe liable of sentencesaccording prison also served“Holocaustblame shifting”, Fascism and “Holocaust, apology justifications” are explicitly as indicatorsorganizationsinvolvedin labeled with my “Holocaust denial/minimization”,codebook andMoreover comments denyingand theHolocaust making praise the apology or ofleaders or guides origin,language, religion, social political sex,opinion, property adherence, or origin.” in the creation nationality, of any ethnic race, on account without itsdiscrimination citizens, homelandall of indivisible and ofcommon is the “Romania that article fourth in its the states which itself Romania Romania, of Romania Constitution ofthe 4.2 Article 133 . As mentionedthe insection social revealedby regardingI.5 the attitudes minorities Law 107/2006. 59 132 CEU eTD Collection to previous asresponses posted were provocationsgroups minority of members from coming comments these of some or againstthough majority. Even groups the minority verbal bymembersof directed hateful content attacks in-groups whilein ‘group B, C, D’ to out-groups. This approach alsomy allows the identification of opinion that‘group A’ and‘group B’were usedinstead majority of minority,or A’ ‘group where refers to does not justify terms the situation. Therefore just nota minority/majority targets of all against types directed the use of allowidentifying basedforintention content any theirdiscriminatory of kind group use to filtersprofanity sites. Thedefinitionswereformulatedthe in of with codebook the the being partof as commentthe they frequently insultscontain in an to bypassattempt the as lines considered werealso subject the and theusers of nicknames/usernames The content. similar other or advertisements, contain content, comprehensible no have that comments making appertenance. individuals without their referenceto ‘junk/spam’ – refers group to ‘insult’, ‘violence’ ‘profanity” in group referred non-hate the tocomments targeted at commentsmembers referredtargeted discussion.to groups/communities, while to or ‘Hate’ legitimate i.e. ‘legit’ code the bythesoftware assigned wereautomatically a code assigned coded with ‘insult’,have been allowed according‘violence’,assigned to comments that have any other sub-codes. to Non-hate commentsthe that should not terms andbe could according not andthelegislation sitethat guidelines legitimate content to ‘legit’ i.e. conditions‘junk/spam’ or termstypes of of‘hate’ and multipleuse codes could be assignedof– to one commentallthe with the exception sitesof other were couldin only be coded of one (binary these The coding).codes second levelcodesreferredto commentscomments earlier; provided definition the into fit could that comments all to referring ‘hate’ that have ‘hate’,and‘non-hate’, level codeswere levels.first on two The werecoded The comments not been Coding frame 60 CEU eTD Collection 134 comments onadevarul.rowere in including hatethe category, analarming 3.44%of importantlyMore even though sitethe shows visible moderation signs of of 32.39% 21.52% on evz andnon-hate categories, although the sites two haveother filters. profanity both post-moderation ingroup compared hatethe 16.62% Gandul.info 27.17%on and is abused not excessively thesite having proportion lowestthe of insults/profanity within the betweenfive sites. the this category largestinsults category in in makethe non-hate proportion andwhich profanity the up 4.64%, containing of comments large amount the of presence by the decreased is also comments legitimate of proportion the evz.ro On category. hate the into included been have sample inthe of user contributions where 48.29% wasfound on gandul.infoThe highestpercentage Figure 2 shows the proportionauthorities. of hate speech and administrators site of part the from onparticipation user managing in comment deficiencies major to sections on the large in points hate speech the purposivelimited proportions such sampling of to the presence individual sites. for 61.08%of inmy comments the sample. Although isgeneralizability findingof these i.e. contributions tothe discussionhateful, arenot that insulting threatening or only account comments legitimate while 37.99% is sample entire in the comments hate of proportion the hateful comments, instigating, will xenophobic, accept or delete not sites the do warnings that Despite the existinglegislation prohibiting discrimination,and guidelines (TOS) the the findings Content Analysis: category. thehate into also coded were they language; therefore discriminatory Data not shown here: see Appendix 3. Appendix see here: shown not Data 134 Surprisingly the lack of profanity filter adevarul.ro Surprisingly profanity on lackof the 61 CEU eTD Collection see Appendix… 135 hate-speech. of amount lower the explain also might feature might not post hate-speech in an increased usersparticipatingdiscussion the who lead couldof proportion to registered to avoid the banning This for comments. vote to in order register to users requires site also the but negative turned of their account. community notmoderation hasonly visible by consequences hiding comments whose total Besides where sample the in moderation, site only is the hotnews.ro Furthermore comments. moderate efficiently this to is possible it that showing also voting, of form in moderation community and moderators This is maintained adualmoderation using system by abusingpre-filtering of content The proportion of legit comments of on hotnews.ro is almost 10% higher than the other sites. more watch thatmoderators closely thatareeasy suggests identifycomments to asinfringing. proportion ‘extermination/murder/rape’of (1.01%)and insultsof comments (8.60%)which that publishedinstantly.Admittedly site comments the adevarul.ro all had lowest second the on than higher slightly even is comments hate of proportion the as Romanialibera.ro moderation beusing Nevertheless seems moderation. inconsistent community to on also hotnews.ro a moderator; of approval need the butinstantly posted arenot comments i.e. use pre-moderation and Romanialibera.ro Hotnews.ro sites three other the Contrary to groups. target the or rape murderof to calling belonging persons extermination that forthe comments For an illustrative sample in approximate English translation of comments in the ‘extermination/murder/rape’ subcategory ‘extermination/murder/rape’ the in comments of translation English approximate in sample illustrative an For 135 62 CEU eTD Collection 63 CEU eTD Collection Table 2. Hate speech types speech 2.Hate Table HATE HS target responding target HS Threat/Violence Thrash/Spam Insult/Profanity Legit NON-HATE Sterilization Hate-Spam for thecountry Disgrace Homosexuality-Pedophilia hate/Discrimination General Moderated appology/justifications Holocaust, Fascism - Discrimination - blameHolocaust shifting Holocaust-denial/minimization extremism Religious Animals/Sub-human Violence Threats History Expulsion Denying (political/civil) rights Superiority/Inferiority/Normality Extermination/Murder/Rape Exclusion/This is country our interests/Enemies/Threat Conspiracy/Foreign Stereotypes/Generalization/Prejudice Insults Comments Comments 3597 1106 143 120 141 148 158 165 186 194 245 341 397 522 44 18 25 50 58 59 71 73 81 86 88 6 8 5 64 Percent ecn Percent of Percent Non-hate 58.80% 18.08% 0.10% 0.13% 0.72% 2.34% 0.08% 0.29% 0.41% 0.82% 0.95% 0.96% 1.16% 1.19% 1.32% 1.41% 1.44% 1.96% 2.31% 2.42% 2.58% 2.70% 3.04% 3.17% 4.01% 5.57% 6.49% 8.53% Percent of Hate 10.54% 14.67% 17.08% 94.76% 22.46% 47.59% 0.16% 0.21% 1.16% 3.77% 0.22% 0.77% 1.08% 2.15% 2.50% 2.54% 3.06% 3.14% 3.49% 3.70% 3.79% 5.16% 6.07% 6.37% 6.80% 7.10% 8.00% 8.35% CEU eTD Collection publication could be prevented by a regularly updated and well configured profanity filter. and be by publication well a regularly configured could prevented profanity updated reference to Homosexual) with slight variations compared to the dictionary form. Their referring to Roma,“ to referring in Romania implying that Romania is not their country. 138 137 136 frequently derogatory suchused words as contain comments of A large proportion these manage speech type. hate most easy the to Insults make largestproportion up the of (47.91%)although ‘hate’ comments is this perhaps findings. Hungarians.my same view The externalvalidity about confirms survey thus andconfers to of the respondents considered found 2012survey those by CNCD’s issimilarcountry”the (5.57%) to category thatis “Exclusion/This in the comments of Roma proportion the methodology should analysis and collection not come to Romania, presencethe minorities inof Although Romania. haveI usedadifferentsampling, data whileeven refusing 4% respondents of holda proportion showing results survey the theof light the in justified instigation to hate. as beinterpreted undermining society could or state tothe enemies,threat minority as entire The inclusion ofdiscrimination, and could evenbeincluded effect underthe of penalthe law. Presenting an the two types intodiscriminatory. the category ofOn as might not beconsideredbyall moderators the interest/threat” hate“conspiracy/foreign other speech hand isas I alsohave or country” isour “exclusion/this coded Comments interpretation. be to subject speech might shown these do fit intocategories as for instance the‘insults’ are straightforward whilelegal the classification of others as hate definition 22hate types.the into category in divided comments Table 2shows hate the of Proportion types of hatespeech Word of unknown meaning and origin allegedly meaning person withouta country – it is used in reference to Hungarians CNCD, I.2 Appendix see categories the of definitions the for Perceptions and attitudes. jidan” (pejorative version of Jew), “ “bozgor 65 ” referring to hungarians to referring ” homolau ” (distorted pejorative ” (distorted 138 , “crow” ( , “crow” 136 137 Some of the where 6% ciora ) CEU eTD Collection 139 sentences. prison some could if lead to even to Holocaust, denying comments interpretation, prosecuted the subject be might above presented categories the in comments the of classification the While for thisillustration type. incomment labeled appendix 4.2.also with label stereotype/prejudicethe provides an regarding homosexuality labeled comments with measuredthis code 4.14percent.The articles of thesubsample it. For for wascreated code separate a therefore pedophilia, preliminarythe analysis indicated homosexuality that is frequently associating with minorities sexual Regarding content. xenophobic and instigating for interpretation different have moderators a that illustrating site, a moderated comefirsthotnews.ro from two the members of a community and have the potentialin label comments clearly Appendix anegativeall 4.1 such as the those presented on place to instigatehand other the on to hate opinions, legitimate from against them differentiate to hard be them. might it as difficult Moreover more isindeed comments these of Thelegal categorization comments. of hate the 21.40% for theentire and sample totaled 7.68% andprejudice stereotypes expressing generalization comments category; largest Thesecond moderate. to easy andrelatively obvious quite is their character terms, demeaning containing specific the not in caseof Even the comments andmaking 6.72% leaders anapology and organizationsof guilty genocidethe seekingof or communism the of crimes the for guilty being for typically holocaust the deserved somehow holocaustarticlesdenial; 9.55% regardingthe Holocaust: victimsthe claims 8.73% that Law 107/2006 Romania 139 However, they still make up more than a quarter of the comments on the on of comments the a quarter than more make up they still However, 66 CEU eTD Collection Voi_rade_pana_la_sfarsitul_vietii-_Nu_ajuta_cu_nimic_daca_plangi_0_667133281.html. http://www.adevarul.ro/life/VIDEO_Cea_mai_batrana_supravietuitoare_din_lume_a_Holocaustului-_- Sfâr that the administrators of the adevarul.ro site dosite as the voting community notuse system of adevarul.ro administrators the the that survivor a story of Holocaust the forthishate of articlepresenting The total category. amount minimization and blameshifting of in holocaust 16.32% comments the E/M/R)andanother deathcalls containing (coded in left 6comments orhumanplaces moderator moderation software the Nevertheless weredeleted. had of 49comments the as 4(8.16%) article signs ofmoderation that of liability of the moderators for allowing it. Similarly the last comment was also posted to an in two syllables. The second comment was posted on a moderated forum raising the question The first comment shows the ease of bypassing profanity filters with the word with Anything If You Cry’ (VIDEO Cea Mai B 147 146 145 144 143 142 assigned to every comment during the content analysis. Access to the database is available on request. Guard. Iron 141 the organization or his genocide in guilty being 140 (E/M/R). werewithlast alsocoded the two ‘extermination/murder/rape” sentences, their for actions. justifications Adevarul.ro. “The Oldest Survivor of the Holocaust: ‘I Will Be #6299 Laughingposted by anti-evrei on Until2012-03-20 10:50:55the onEnd adevarul.ro of My Life. It Does Not Help #1404 posted by onrsss Mar 8th, 08:57 #6427 posted by observeron 18:45, 23 June 2011, on romanialibera.ro #1422 posted by Anton Escu on Mar 6th, 16:58 pejorative term referring to Jews modified in order to bypass the profanity filter Seeappendix 4.2 for theRomanian originalof the comments, the number after # is the unique identification number ,typically praising Ion Antonescu Romania’s leader during the second World War, convicted to death and executed for ú itul Vie Ġ ii. Nu Ajut dans The world? the to communism the brought who But strong. and high fairytales!!! DEATH TO THE JIDANS!” DEATHTOTHE fairytales!!! their and jidans filthy the of enough had We (…) Why? obsessively. time the “All I havebaptized” something? No Idid not. Regarding the jews I wish them remainto as many as NEITHER HITLER OR ANTONESCU FINISHED THE JOB. Did I deny BADTOO THAT regret: a meexpress let but anything, deny “Idon’t population” hostile the for camps had countries the All (…) pro-communists They were waslegitimate. WorldWar in 2-nd the Jews the of “the Deportation “What Holocaust???? There was no such thing. Only the ă Cu Nimic Dac “ 143 144 jidans ă 140 Plângi").” 145 The example bellow illustrates comments liable for prison for liable comments illustrates bellow example The 147 and holocaust their suffering and holocaust fablesrepeated theirsuffering all and the ă was 44.90% hate, 53.06%legit.shows also hate, Thisarticle was44.90% trân ă Supravie 67 Ġ uitoare Din Lume a Holocaustului: „Voi Râde Pân 146 ji dans 142 jidan sustain this sustain 141 ă La divided ji CEU eTD Collection easy to filter out or moderate. filter or out easy to speechcommentsbe violent thatareclearly hate would asextremely quite and recognizable andromanialibera.ro1.01% on 0.54%onhotnews.ro. Thefollowing of areexamples the smaller: significantly are proportions the but pre-moderation have that sites the on even sample, followedwith by evz.ro 4.16% and 3.44%. Itadevarul.ro is notexcluded completely hate comments; its proportion is highest on gandul.info where itmakes up for 7.48% of the Hungarians,for Jewish 3.74% 2.24%LGTB.Thispeople, makes up category of 10.54% the 5.42% are proportions groups the the target for restof the while (8.80%) regarding Roma the proportion articles in highest on exterminationthe sample, acrosstheor entire occur murder for advocating 3 Comments Table in shown As intentionally. there left are comments ‘E/M/R’ the mean itcould that pages or on fortheir the content indifferent either are The fact thatthemedia they that appearandinsuch largestill organizations numbers suggests expression. bethis by can bewell beyond category to protected what freego considered to right the in sample) of entire the (4.01percent comments in 245 expressed the attitudes opinions the inbut my free expression, if limits mediaof arewithin lawthe of or or they ethics, the extent the is under to refer they content the whether on categories, other the for interpretation genocidemurder, the or rape of persons in There mightanother group. befor some space for threats or calls explicit and open contain that comments violent extremely to referring The most speech disturbinghate is type of labeled category the “Extermination/Murder/Rape” user participation.approach to of current the criminalizing Holocaustbutdenial,alsohe can that with impunity act thepointing failure to he islegislation in showsthat awareof Theuserthe thirdthe comment later. months place moderation, as the comment above received 23 negative and 9 positive votes but it was still in 68 CEU eTD Collection 154 153 152 151 149 149 148 from minority the readers/visitors higheris that chance thatthere a suppose reasonable to content. violent more on posting compete to start were users encouraged to voice his viewsif he then finds comments that even call forand the murder and are not deleted, thehe might even feel comment section can soon turn into a ‘hate contest’ 155 out points Biegel as impression the be under he can comments, such reads a minority about opinions negative some has already who person intolerant moderately a If content. hateful further for a catalyst minority important genocide national anewspaper canserve webpageof on against the as an about minorities, which in my view increase their harm potential.Allowing open calls for articles to posted were sample in the comments the all methodology in the mentioned As Biegel, -#960 posted by zau zau on Feb 29th, 2012,23:57 on evz.ro #6790 posted by onMisu 09:20 |22 April, 2011 on romanialibera.ro #6504 posted by mihai on 20:00, 16 June, 2011 on romanialibera.ro #1149 posted by Daul Ab Uci on 2012-03-19 13:31:58 on adevarul.ro #2088 posted by Laurentiu on 2012-04-19 17:43:40 on adevarul.ro #526 posted by Alin on 2011-12-29 17:39:00 on gandul.info foran example see the Beyond Our Control align all in a row and shoot them from the first ‘till the last” the ‘till first the from them shoot and in arow all align Hungarians ”I couldn’t standlife, butthe Russiansmy entire Iswearwould behavehomalau-s treatedas to pedophiles”the incurablythose homalau FINAL the shouldSOLUTION beapplied…,…The … theirPanonia.”deported to or be killed to have hungarians the that time long a for saying been “I’ve one” a Romanian into name her change will she a session after that bet I my gang! from boys the with like“I hungarians don’t but Iwould gang-rapetheblonde in one picture the rats” asthe as damaging are gipsyhumans,“that’s whyIsay these agood isa are not dead gipsy, that they HUNGARIANS AT ONCE. DEATH TO THE BOZGORS HUNGARIAN BUSINESSES/ SPARE BULLETS! SHOOT TWO KILL THEM/BURNDOWN THEN BOZGOR WOMENAND THE “SPIT THE HUNGARIANS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM/ RAPE THE 154 being homalau (derogatory reference to homosexual)for being isachoice!!! … (derogatory to reference homalau , that society at large shares his views, and that such viewslegitimate; are thatsuch largeviews, and shares his society , that at 151 150 149 69 152 155 On the other hand it is it hand other Onthe 148 153 CEU eTD Collection 156 due to into regions, abandoned reorganize country the of the territory to failed initiative the to topic. refers the‘Territorial This articles on of about comments the 52.59% reorganization’ against makingbeing Thisisfollowed hate Hungarians, hate-speech. directed bycontent up criminal acts committed by Roma prompted the worst reaction, with 54.05% of the comments topics article hate amongst of distribution In the Table 3. this might be due to distortions caused by the nature of the sample. but surprising, is homosexuality about articles the for hate of amount lower the distance social regarding results survey lightthe of the In stable. relatively isalso speech hate posting users population the that of groups in sample suggest hatethe speech target the along proportion of stable relative this differed also collected articles of number the topics; different on and times, different on were collected articles the Since variations. small shows surprisingly data Table 3 shows the proportion hateof contentdivided along the fivecommunities. target The Distribution ofhatebased on target groups and topics its target. to reach hateful comment willgroups read articles about/regarding their community, helping sites the effectively the Roma LGTB Jewish Hungarian Topic See table .. in appendix.. .. table See Proportion of hate speech against target groups Proportion of target hate speech against Articles Comments 17 18 41 7 1184 3640 409 848 70 Hate 1377 173 431 334 156 shown in Figure 3 the articles relating articles the 3 Figure in shown Percent 42.30% 36.40% 39.39% 37.83% Hate Legit 2193 219 693 467 Percent 53.55% 58.53% 55.07% 60.25% Legit CEU eTD Collection Vedem”.) EXCLUSIV -Gandul.” Vedem”.) Consiliului Jude views. 160 Later it was revealed that the journalist distorted the word peacefully giving it the sense without weapons covasna-despre-nesupunerea-civica-in-prima-faza-iesim-in-strada-fara-arme-apoi-o-sa-vedem-exclusiv-8342275 ‘In the First Phase We Will Get to the Streets Without Weapons. Than We Will See’ (Tamas 159 Sandor (UDMR), 158 in protest. At the time the Hungarian party’s vote were needed to obtainreorganization majority plans despite the refusalin of thethe DAHR,parliamentthe party threatened would with street demonstrations and Hungarians civilthe of disobedience proportion the where be significantly regions lower,into thus they wouldbe inminority all overintentionally the country.Since placed the president been intendedhave to go would ahead with the majority in are Hungarians 157 the refusal of the Hungarian party (DAHR) to vote for it in the Parliament. wording of the article. The unexpectedly high proportion of the legit comments for the for comments legit the of proportion high unexpectedly The article. the of wording groupspeech, targetthe or topicishate suggesting comments that not attracting the can hate of titles higher amount can prompt articles intended whereaswell comments hate receive less tendentious with articles instigating: occasional the or title the of independent is of comments amount hateful that the indicate my above the findings Despite example on gandul.infothe now site totaling 674comments and 28514 views publishedin May article2012 the extremely the including genocidecallsviolent to werestill yearit almostwas a should after bethat noted tothis It singlearticle. topic 70wereposted comments to this articlemoreprompting than hate. which 300 comments 78.67% of were were in the E/M/R category;leader ofto theimply 74 such material publishedgandul.info on astatement journalistthe distorted of a Hungarian county thatcomments Hungarians within the in amount isonthis of hate entiretopic largest the sample article with the the would even resortinstance by For fueled mediaorganizations. the The negative sometimes were also attitudes to violence to have say stopin the way Romania is organized since it is not their country. the reorganization‘exclusion/this country” isour expressingcategory generally the view donot Hungarians that along containing beside the topics; 28.02%of insults,incomments the 13.55%were the hate of proportion highest the generated politicians Hungarian the of position the presenting the article was collected into the sample on the day it was published on 16.06.2011 when it had 348 comments and 10016 gandul.info.2011. “Tamas Sandor (DAHR) the Chief of the County Councilof Covasna About the Civil Disobedience: also cited in the Introduction The main motivation of the Hungarian party for the refusal of the reorganization was that the two counties where Ġ ean Covasna, Despre „nesupunerea Civic http://www.gandul.info/politica/tamas-sandor-udmr-seful-consiliului-judetean- ă ": „În Prima Faz 71 ă , Ie ú im În Strad 159 160 Moreover 23.33% of 23.33% the Moreover ă F ăUă Arme.Apoi oS 157 Thearticles ù 158 eful ă . In the In . . CEU eTD Collection singular case and remains anoutlier. caseandremains singular is However, this ofhate comments. 8.28% in only himselfresulting thecomments moderated and in discussion the participated theauthor un-moderated) (usually from adevarul.ro ‘hockey team’ topic, might be due to the fact that for an article with high comment count 72 CEU eTD Collection 73 CEU eTD Collection 163 comentariile.html#comentarii. http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/sexul-pe-furis-al-gay-ilor-din-bucuresti-952300/pagina-comentarii//toate- message of the article was distorted. Members of sexual minority groups accessing the article accessing sexual Membersminority the groups of wasdistorted. message article the of terms. However in thathomosexuals few read the presentinggroup positive their suppose articles would since 47% of homosexuality. the more than inwritten apositive it could tone have to the diffusion contributed stereotypesof about 300 comments storycontained of a man and hate,some elements the positiveof the social life of the gay community. Since it was 162 161 intopic comments this most with the The article homosexuals. to rights grant to Romania forced that conspiracy global of interests the represents community gay the that or society the of morality the isundermining homosexuality that implying comments categorybe includes presentto in interest/threats” while “conspiracy/foreign the public, homosexuality generally‘denying rights’right denied the of or gay category couples (5.36%) on church literature or posted actual sermons of orthodox monks. The comments on the based were category inthis comments the most of fact In minorities. sexual towards attitude pointing strong the (7.54%) position to Churchandits negative Romanian the of Orthodox ahigh extremism negative repeated of Therewas stereotypes. religious proportion (9.38%) mosttype frequent second of comments “normal” community people,the as everyday purpose apparent the Although derogatory. of extremely them of some insults the contained comments majority stories,‘comingof out’ theissue gay-marriageof andadoption. Nevertheless 22.11% of the the couples, articles homosexual of life the tones positive slightly even or neutral in presenting general was to diffusehate and41.04% 57.08%legit Thesecomments. articles deal with gaycommunity the in stereotypes group Within target articlesthe LGTB in the in received “homosexuality topic the general” by presenting the gay See the survey result presented in the section regarding the social context social the regarding section the in presented result survey the See Homosexuality was decriminalized in 2001 at the pressures of the European Union. evz.ro. European the “Sexulof Pe Furi pressures the at 2001 in decriminalized was Homosexuality 163 Since the media visibility of sexual minorities is also law it is reasonable to is reasonable it law also is minorities sexual of visibility media the Since ú Al Homosexualilor Din Bucure 161 ú ti (The Secret Sex-life of the Homosexuals in Bucharest).” 74 162 presented alesbian couple, coming the out CEU eTD Collection delivered the victims to thehate speech. to victims delivered the effectively evz.ro hatecomments by un-moderated allowing insults. Therefore and 26.33% threats, 4% linking identifying or homosexuality with pedophilia,religious 10.33% extremism containing 6.33% for their extermination called 3%of comments, which face 142hate had to 75 CEU eTD Collection 164 the samepolicy under the as newspaper treated onlineare by editions fact that the originated comment sections and spaces participatory thenewspapers’ of exploitation allows forthe that online press as platformsIn study,this I setoff with identifying aim the loopholeof the inmedia on policy provisions to disseminate2.The nature and enabling factors ofuser-generated hate speech hate speech. reproduce comments level negativethe in foundof attitudes society.the I argue that of comments hate the in the“exclusion/this isourcountry” category suggesting that this loopholewho refused the presence of isthe Roma and Hungarian minority foundto those by surveys regarding discrimination was similar to the proportion similar results lead to analysis representative samplethe not thus on a purposive it based was hate comments postgroups topics.Although stable group regardlessof or users who of target is arelatively groups beingthere suggesting that 40percent, stability around along target shows relative hate of speech.The amount hate in my contains sample of comments percent 37.99 that revealed analysis content The comments. hate of classification and identification itthen provide23 hate-typewas expanded into to categories, would acodebook that allow the and definitions, encyclopedic the and legislation basedthe on wascreated ‘hate’ of definition during and thatoccurred monthsApril aperiod topics A of 13 from March 2011 to 2012. minorities target on weregrouped Thearticles comments. 6031 andtherespective minorities importantfrom newspapers Romanian 83 articleson mosttopics regarding sites the of sampleof apurposive assembled features, andthen participatory of the comparative analysis hate speech sitethe usage inidentifyingpolicies a user-generated performed and preventing legislation efficiencyand the and totest phenomena the the of To assessof of proportions the Conclusions CNCD, Perceptions and attitudes, 2009, 2012 . 76 164 where the proportion of where theproportion respondents of CEU eTD Collection on sites where it is present alongside with professional content, neither regarding the regarding neither content, professional with alongside is present it where sites on UGC specially provisions regarding self-regulated statutory noor because currently are there is myview, this In editorial teams. newspapers’ by enacted the approaches management UGHS, namely enabling main factors identifiedhave two question,I myresearch second With to regards the deferralattract and reach its targets and to multiply such as a virus by means of its host. to article) news (the content professional itexploits and user-name, anick-or using only of all responsibilityparticipate inanonline debate encourage possibility suchasthe citizento initially debate to features designed or UGC, regarding regulation a consistent lackof such asthe system forsociety.shows a It parasitizing andvirus-like behavior by exploiting the “weaknesses” of the UGCRomanian in the widespread already minorities towards to attitudes negative the comments of users and murderin genocide,form language violent for andeven or threats, calls reproducing contains the comment hate speech inUser-generated mainly Romaniais insults,itcomposed butgroup-based of also speech. hate thenature of in question beginningresearch user-generated the about posed the to answer Icanofferan four, in chapter presented analysis empirical the Based on speech. hate malicious topublishby a weakness users exploited thatcanbe user-generated successfully aimedpublishing theregulation-free atprotectingbecomes originally pressfreedom approach in online Therefore author. accountable an identify to impossible if not hard is it which for by of alargesegment usersposted sidebyside,there remains content appear anonymous editorial material, following supposedly the ethicsproduced of profession,the UGC and where website, on the it. However for accountable whoare editor or author identifiable) for hasnewspapers printthe edition whereall aresponsible works publishedcontent the (and to approach regulation-free The hands-off, news-sites. policy for a good necessarily is not version,print although they are different products. A policygood newspapers printregarding 7 7 CEU eTD Collection a large segment of UGHS (especially that in the ‘Extermination/Murder/Rape”, “Holocaust” large ina of segment UGHS(especially that ‘Extermination/Murder/Rape”, the can Aslegislation UGHS. shownthat be applied in to in provided four, examples the chapter The fail alsoauthorities in enforcing of the provisions anti-discriminatory existing the extent. hatespeech tothis tolerate explain why they might sites users could from any which alsoexonerate moderation the regarding of duty comments, whileconsequences gain the sites benefits. responsibility Transferring to all financial the by Fuchs and Schafer otherwise gain commercial benefits, effectively exploiting the users’ “free labor” as suggested or republish to right the including comments the for rights property intellectual the retain 167 analyzed in study,this thefindings and similarly to Ruiz of the TOS, and transferring then all the responsibility users.to At the same time, on all the sites considereditors fulfill that their they in duty theprevention in UGHS justof byannouncing it and administrators itseems that guidelines, of their in own violation obvious of content amount large such of presence the given However, comments. racist and instigating, hateful, resulting prohibiting in analyzed inall sites the research xenophobic,discriminatory,this ofservice, and terms rules, participation guidelines, inthesite lawsThese weretransposed regulation. existingthe anti-discrimination inapplying authorities andof model regulatory legislative shows current thefailureof the largein amounts such UGHS of The presence filter by journalists. created of content their team the editors where model journalism traditional the in be to used it like much - them posting of lower (i.e., inproportion UGHS ismuch sites pre-moderate filter)messagesthat on before 166 165 and method. theirmoderation comments ornot, preferred management of user participation, leaving the sites free to choose whether to moderate Fuchs, Ruiz et al., moderation or post pre Political Economy of Google Public Sphere 2.0 167 . This results in a situation where users face all legal the faceall users where inasituation . This results ; Schafer, Bastard Culture. 78 165 My study shows that the amount the that shows study My et a l. 166 the newspapers online CEU eTD Collection 169 168 be not accessedby asit as many groups inthe happenspeople target newspapers: with online websites, hate-blogs, hate-forums ortheircounterparts. Moreover offline probablyitwould woulddisappearitwould contentmarginalizedhate not on extremist websites, but remain of dissemination views. Inabsenceof discriminatory exposure guaranteed bynewspaperthe the largescale to contributing thus way, other inany accessible hardly would be hate speech syntax the which a readily to an assembledof audience email address, providing knowledge of sufficient everyone with effective to control, isopen,without sections comment the trough mass-audiences these access the features, to participatory intheir analysisof the sites Romanian moremakes in dangerous.Thesites UGHS visited mysampleareamongst most the host and a delivery of hate speech.platform The higherlevel providedof exposure by host the a as serve to content and pages their allow they providers information of role their fulfilling Tolerating UGHS is also to be considered a failure on the samethe space and share theside same audience, they shouldof be subject to thethe same rules. newspapers. Instead in Myviewsinceboth is publish of that creators. of a category of content treatment preferential journalists. Toundisturbed presence ofhate speech in ends comments the up being unfair towards put it with the Furthermore, Hlavach isdifficult. post extremely they content the for users accountable and Freivogelpostedcontent online, given as, by judicial lack the holdingof support state, individualthe authorities’ ends the indifference harming by affected minority the speechup hate groups However them stage. at this toinvestigate Ihave data nor clear, empirical not are inefficiency have behind this seem any reasons The measures take to removed. them donot authorities to regulatory newspaper websites presence on from judging continued their legislation, -yet existing the speech hate under as be easily recognized relatively can categories) “Insult” and see Table 1. Hlavach and Freivogel, 169 , each with 1.5millionaround visitors permonth.unique As Ihave shown Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments. 79 168 , there is no good explanation for the for explanation good no is , there CEU eTD Collection system. last would be the optimal solution as it would prevent state interference into the media bynewspapers.and The electronic for theirnewspapers pages, c)self-regulation responsible make to legislation the to amendments b) page; main the from comments readers’ the In myview speech:a) hate user-generated could there solutionsof bethree separation to the phenomena. the prevent be to done could what and legislation the despite there still they why are be rather should filtered, onwebsites whether hateful comments not is question the Therefore happening. prevent speechhowever onlinenot hate from typewhich does messages, that of all analyzed sites the in the into legislation study this transposed theirprohibiting guidelines that fact in the example, for is visible, This speech. hates with associated generally behaviors prohibitsin clearly regulation quite hate speech, discriminatory the Romania law of the the prevents Amendment where First the United States, like the countries to Contrary 2. Preventing user-generated hate speech filter. prevent, by although only besaid to type easiest updating profanity regularly would the this of insults comments) all percent speech largest (18.08 the typehate are that indicate of filters to prevent the posting of offensive or obscene words. The results of the content analysis tobesites publishedinstantly allow comments relying poorly configured only profanity on five the of three with exception the that revealed interface commenting the of The analysis community.about their reach ablebelonging minorities to to people whoread in largernumberarticles presumably on in sitesthe thissample,by appearing alongside articles with minorities, UGHSis about 80 CEU eTD Collection 171 170 by described McQuail. approach solutionbe theIn my would optimal publicas self-regulation, a opinion trust abuses. state for is again open it and comments, legitimate have However,this effecton as a achilling lastsolution could deterrent. act could combined which sections, commentin speech cases hate of place, prosecution the and simplest statutory solution would be a rigorous enforcement of the legislation already in The government. of authoritarian in presence especially in themedia, andabuse interference Neither prevent UGHS -butthis would solution second notsuchmessages. initial the posting of of thesealso extended to websites, which wouldsolutions allow for the institution to issue take down notices for CNCD the to discrimination to with regards function monitoring add content could legislation is desirable,management for requirements the service providers. Themodification of existingthe UGCsites from dedicated differentiated sites mainstream as they content on for user-generated it mediawouldresponsibility thequestion of (where clarify would a lawon special online elaborate to government the require would option legislative The increase the potential for state of of actual meaningthe andof prohibitedthe extent categories. shared meaning. itself The codebook could alsobe publishedin TOStomakethe users aware “hateful” already despite being present prohibited in guidelinesof the sitesfinallyhavethe a and “racist”, would “discriminatory”, “instigating”, the codebook terms the ensurethat similar to is adocument ineffective. Having approach totally in which current legislation, the happens with such codebook, the guidelinesincorporate could also elements of the inAs it 2. codebook the appendix similarto set of guidelines agreed based onacommonly moderating comments, towards newspapers/sites participating by the anda commitment moderation practice regarding recommendations contain also good participation which would McQuail, platform sharing video Youtube the as such Accountability of Media 171 Media organizations could agree to an ethics code for audience code an ethics agreeto could Media organizations 81 170 ), or the participation CEU eTD Collection article on the same topic, while still benefiting from the same audience. In many cases such as societal norms, laws or ethicsbecannot that Views publisheddueto arenosuchlimitsshows, inthe comments. there in an article can be consequencespublished on their professional reputation. Onthe other hand, as the data presented earlier in the comment formal informal regardingbreaching content; has legal or these moral regulations and sections of an laws similar andother rules, by ethical guidelines, and are professional constrained online due to the threat of possiblemedia are notlegal able to actions.do in the offlinein issueseven articles presented the or for intimidation the of – a given something group Media or even organizations in the professional the about can manipulating perception andthat public’s for beusedthe also counterpart, areasand journalistsof the online world bothin itspresent not offline is newspaper which the online space on responsibility-free offline a creates comments the of nature unrestricted and unregulated the hand other On the content. generated user- the not and editorial read the to there went presumably who article, the views of disregarding contributions) multiple representstill fraction insignificant an 28514 of the sitethe (even on currently the 674comments posted proportion percent), UGHS (78.64 of highest the with article the of example the taking hand, other the On them. to reacting advertising on as visitors revenues sitethe comments spend less would reading or time would in only not resultingin but alsodisappear, reducedparticipation reduced them to reacting comments the be published not would comments hate if the Additionally hate speech:reduced advertisement revenues. As the content analysisshows, eliminating 37.99% of comments contain cost of potentially indirect isalsothe there is itself but costly, moderation On hand one the the them wouldRomania and thefinancial costs of moderation, imposes aburden which mediaon companies. cut in body self-regulatory a joint of lack the inis solution a such implementing in almost obstacle A major half the levels of user participation. 82 CEU eTD Collection comments have a role in reproducing or maintaining negative attitudes towards minorities. towards attitudes negative maintaining or in reproducing role a have comments discrimination, therefore an important issue to clarify would be if the large proportions of hate mentioned Asgroups. hatespeechitwas has onthetarget theuser-generated is theeffect answered findingsjournalists comments to is also worthexploring. An equally questionimportant beto of the content by The roleRomanian of attributed accessible intheir violations guidelines. own evident analysis speechcontent hate keeping andfor method, moderation aparticular choosing for motivations show similarities in findings would anextstep bethis thesis totry media expore the to organizations’ the on Based it. tolerating for authorities and newspapers of motivations is the Romania to survey in hate speech results user-generated regarding major question a section, inAs shown previous the about 4. Directions for further research minority. the of intimidation an as intended be also might comments violent and hateful extremely in the thesis the fact that the site used an inflammatory title and allowed such high amount of clear article the infringement beginningof presentedatthe guidelines. their to Returning own in even it allowing for motivations their about wonder to has one Therefore, pages. their on displayed content such aware of having werenot ofthesites administrators the that unlikely criminality, the amountthe two topics with the highest amount of hate-speech:of the territorial reorganizationhate and Roma comments and their nature is evident at a first glance. It is 83 CEU eTD Collection Butler, Judith. Speech.” of Hate the Problem and 2.0 “Library Beall. Jeffrey and Margaret, Brown-Sica, http://www.brat.ro/index.php?page=compare n.d. sample”, the in newspapers for numbers “Circulation ———. BRAT -Romanian Bureau of Circulation Audit. “Circulation numberfor nationwide daily newspapers (cotidian Braman, Sandra. Biegel, Stuart. Berg, Bruce. Berg, Couture, Barbara. “Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric: What’s at Stake?” In atStake?” What’s Rhetoric: Public and Lives Private “Reconciling Barbara. Couture, Benkler, Yochai. Barendt, E. ———. ActiveWatchMedia Monitoring Agency, Pentru Centrul Jurnalism Independent (Center forIndependent Journalism - “SATI- Studiul deAudienta si Trafic Internet”, n.d. “Ana Birchall wins lawsuit vs. Iosif Buble”, June 6, 2011. http://www.nineoclock.ro/ana-birchall-wins-lawsuit-vs- Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Jean and Richard, Delgado, Corporation. Ebooks and Barbara, Couture, spaces.” public in online speech free and pluralism “Radical Bart. Cammaerts, Expression.” Artistic for Problem the and Pornography, Speech, Hate Left?: “What’s Amy. Adler, http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n02/brown-sica_m01.html. Academic andSpecialLibrarianship (accessed April 29, 2012). (accessed April 29, 2012). generalist national) for period the march 2011-march 2012”, n.d.http://www.brat.ro/index.php?page=compare Amendment Published [Conn.] Public Rhetoric. Public (accessed October1, 2012). www.activewatch.ro/uploads/FreeEx%20Publicatii%20/Autoreglementarea%20presei%20din%20Romania.pdf the press in Romania Romania), andIMAS Public opinion resarch agency. _type_period=1&filter_period=2011-03-01&filter_category=3#nespecificat (accessed April 29, 2012). http://www.sati.ro/index.php?page=rezultate_site&o=name&sort=ASC&siteid=nespecificat&letter=toate&filter iosif-buble/ (accessed June 6, 2011). References: Studies Review %20May%203%202010.pdf. http://www.activewatch.ro/uploads/FreeEx%20Publicatii%20/FreeEx%20Report%20- Media Freedom in Romania 2009 Freedom of speech 84, no. 6 84,no. (December1, 1996): 1499-1572. 12, no. 6(November1, 2009): 555 -575. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences :: Yale University Press,, 2006. Excitable speech Beyond our control? : Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric. Change of state The wealth of networks how productionsocial transforms markets and freedom . New York: New York University Press, 1997. Logan . Survey. ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency (Romania), October2009. :: Utah State University Press,, 2004. . 2nd ed. Oxford : a politics of the performative . Cambridge (Mass.) Cambridge (Mass.); London: the MIT press,2001. Must we Nazis? defend . ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency (Romania), 2009. v.9 no.2, no. Summer 2008 (2008). 2008 Summer no. no.2, v.9 Private, thePublic, and the Published ;;New York: Oxford University Press,2007. ;;London: the MIT press, 2006. press, MIT the ;;London: Autoreglementarea presei inRomania -Selfregulation of 84 . New York: Routledge, 1997. : hate speech, pornography, and the new First , 1-30.Logan . 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. International Journal ofCultural :: Utah State University Press,, 2004. : Reconciling Private Lives and Private, the Public, and the Electronic Journal of . New Haven California Law CEU eTD Collection Hallin, Daniel C, and Paolo Mancini. Paolo and C, Daniel Hallin, Kaufer, David S. “The Influence of Expanded Access to Mass Communication on Public Expression: The Rise of K.U.Leuven– ICRI (leadcontractor) Jönköping International Business School -MMTC Central EuropeanUniversity Peter. Gross, McQuail, Dennis. “Accountability of Media to Society: Principles and Means.” In INSOMAR. Hlavach, Laura, and William Freivogel. “Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted to Online News Gross, Peter, and Mihai Coman. Gaiser, Ted J, and Anthony E Schreiner. Lee, E.-J., and Yoon Jae Jang. “What Do Others’ Reactions to News on Internet Portal Sites Tell Us? Effects of Krippendorff, Klaus. Kinney, Terry A. “Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms”. Malden MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. ‘LOONEY TUNES’.” “ONLINE Michael. Brian Goss, Agency. Monitoring Media ActiveWatch and FreeEx, (RSF). Borders Without Reporters and Agency, Monitoring Media ActiveWatch FreeEx, Deuze, Mark. “Internet News”. Malden MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. in Donsbach, Wolfgang., ed. Hine, Christine. Hine, Tim. Dwyer, Duffy, Margaret E. “Web of Hate: aFantasy Theme Analysis of the Rhetorical Vision of Hate Groups Online.” ———. “The Web itsand Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of Newsmedia Online.” state university press, 1996. Representatives of the Personal.” In Personal.” ofthe Representatives November15, 2011). http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/study/country_rep/index_en.htm (accessedPluralism in theMember States -Towards aRisk-Based Approach. Media.” and Society -Information |Europa Force Task Media - CMCS Ernst & Young Consultancy Belgium. “Country - reports Study onIndicators forMedia Pluralism - http://www.cncd.org.ro/files/file/Fenomenul%20discriminarii%202009.pdf. perceptions and attitudes in 2009 Research 6 (July 2010): 825-846. Stories.” http://www.activewatch.ro/uploads/FreeEx%20Publicatii%20/Freeexeng_2008_dtp.pdf. Monitoring Agency (Romania), 2009. Presentation Format and Readers’ Need for Cognition on Reality Perception.” Reality on Cognition for Need Readers’ and Format Presentation 2004. Rhetoric. Public %20May%203%202010.pdf. http://www.activewatch.ro/uploads/FreeEx%20Publicatii%20/FreeEx%20Report%20- 2010 encyclopedia of communication U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Journal of Communication Inquiry New Media & Society . ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency (Romania), 2011. Fenomenul discriminarii inRomania -perceptii si atitudini" in anul2009 -Discrimination in Romania- Mass media in revolution and nationaldevelopment Media convergence , 89-102. Sage, 2005. Journal of Mass Media Ethics Virtual methods Content analysis , 153-165. Logan: Utah State University Press,, 2004. 5, 2 no. (June 2003): 203-230. Media and journalism inRomania . Maidenhead : issues in social research on the Internet . Malden MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Comparing media systems : anintroduction to its methodology . CNCD- NationalAnti-Discrimination Council,Romania, 2009. 27, no. 3(July 2003):1, 291 -312. A guideA toconducting onlineresearch Private, the Public,and the Published 26, (Januaryno. 1 2011): 21-37. ;;New York: McGraw Hill/OpenUniversity Press, 2010. Media Media Freedom in Romania 2008 Journalism Studies 85 : three models of media and politics. . Berlin: Vistas, 2006. Vistas, . Berlin: : the Romanian laboratory Independent Study on Indicators for Media , n.d. 8, no. 3(June 2007): 365-381. . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks Calif.: Sage, . Oxford; New York: Berg, 2005. . Los Angeles; London: SAGE, 2009. : Reconciling Private Lives and Communication Theory & Communication Research . ActiveWatch-Media Media Freedom in Romania . Ames (Iowa):Iowa The international Cambridge, 37, no. 37, CEU eTD Collection Schäfer, Mirko. Schäfer, Sanders, Teela. “Researching the Online Sex Work Community.” In Community.” Work Sex Online the “Researching Teela. Sanders, Ruiz, Carlos, David Domingo, Josep Lluís Micó, Javier Díaz-Noci, Koldo Meso, and Pere Masip. “Public Sphere 2.0? Robinson, Sue. “Traditionalists vs. Convergers.” vanDijck, Teun A. Rorive, Isabelle. “What Can Be Done Against Cyber Hate? Freedom of Speech Versus Hate Speech in the Council of Council in the Speech Hate Versus of Speech Freedom Hate? Cyber Against Be Done Can “What Isabelle. Rorive, Sunstein, Cass. Sunstein, van Dijck, José. “Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.” Valcke,Peggy, and Marieke Lenaerts.“Who’s author, editor andpublisher inuser-generated content? Applying Stake, Robert. “Qualitative Case Studies.” In Studies.” Case “Qualitative Robert. Stake, ofIdeas.” Marketplace the and Autonomy, Speech, “Free Sarah. Sorial, Singer, Jane B, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Alfred Hermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Lewis. Jane and Jane, Ritchie, n.d. BSinger, by Jane edited space.” of participatory transformation The Comments: “User Zvi. Reich, Rebillard, F., andA. Touboul.“Promises unfulfilled? ‘Journalism 2.0’, user participation andeditorial policy on Organisationfor Economic Co-operation andDevelopement. “PARTICIPATIVE WEB: USER-CREATED Neumann, Russel W. “Interactivity, Concept of”.Malden MA: BlackwellPub., 2008. Kimberly. Neuendorf, the Internet Press/Politics Newspapers.” Online in Debates ofCitizen Qualities Democratic The Technologies 2003. Publications, Sage Calif.: Oaks, Thousand London; (January (January 1, 2009): 41-58. Europe.” n.d. Publications, 2005. (March 2010): 119-131. traditional media concepts to UGC providers.” 2009. (January (January 2010): 167-183. Boston[u.a.]: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Vujnovic. Marina 2011. Press, University newspaper websites.” newspaper CONTENT”, n.d. Cardozo Journal of International& Comparative Law Going to extremes Bastard culture! , edited by Christine Hine, pp. 67-80. Oxford; New York: Berg, 2005. 16, no. 1(February 2010):1, 125 -143. 16, no. 4(October1, 2011): 463 -487. Ideology and discourse A Multidisciplinary Introduction The content analysis guidebook Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers Media, Culture & Society Qualitative research practice : how user participation transforms cultural production : how minds like unite and divide Sage Handbook ofQualitative Research Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media International Review of Law,Computers & Technology 32, 2 no. (March 2010): 323-334. . Thousand Oaks Calif.: Sage Publications, 2002. 86 : a guide forsocial science students and researchers . Oxford Virtual methods 17,no. 3 (October2009): 417-426. The Journal ofValue Inquiry : Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates The International Journal of . Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, University, Fabra . Pompeu ;;New York: Oxford University Press, University Oxford ;;New York: Media, Culture & Society , 443, 467. 3rd ed. Sage : issues in social research on . Amsterdam: Amsterdam 44, no. 2 31, no. 1 24, no. 1 . . CEU eTD Collection Appendix 1. Minority related issues in the Romanian press Romanian the in issues related Minority 1. Appendix Annexes Hungarian Jewish Target LGTB s Holocaust –Articles about Romania’s role in the holocaust survivors Holocaust violence against homosexuals. life/coming out of homosexuals. Stories about Homosexuality generalin homosexuality is not a choice. wordthe ‘homosexual’ to illustrate that the image organizationofplaced billboards inseveral cities a with newbornGay Billboard wearing a 2011 wristbandin march Fest Pride/Gay Bucharest The with Hungarian king in the city of Kolozsvar/Cluj withcontroversial conternt onthe statue of a leaders for the unauthorized placement of a plaque Kolozsvar/Cluj statue for the Hungarian citizenship Dual citizenship awarded Transsylvania toRomania in1920. Trianon of hungarians, sang along the anthem of Hungary.Romanian national hockey team composedentirely the Hungary, and Romania between match hockey Hockey team (February-March 2012) of a faculty of Hungarianinmedicine language Medical University of Mures/MarosvasarhelyTargu HungarianMedical University majority the are they where counties Hungarians loosing the majority status inthe two in changes in resulting units, administrative larger in Romania reorganize to government Te Hungarianthe population seeks automomy withHungarian majority population and forwhich Bruxelles, forSzeklerland the region of Romania in office representation of a opening the Autonomy/ extremist Hungarian by a hero national hanging of a puppet representing a Romanian March 15. 2011 r ritorial reorganization – Events remembering the treaty that treaty the remembering Events Minority Related Topics – – In December 2011 on an official an on 2011 December In – - Hungariannationalholida Hunga AnLGTB rights activist – – rians in Romania asking – Interviews about the – Protest of Hungarian of Protest a proposition of the proposition a Interviews about the – The creation at the 87 y./ The Total Articles 10 4 8 4 3 1 4 8 7 8 6 4 5 Total Comments 124 597 293 250 103 483 820 489 753 447 295 488 294 CEU eTD Collection Roma Roma way of life way Roma criminality Criminality Gipsy (Tigan), Homosexual Language (DEX), for the words, ‘Roma’ (Rrom), definitions inthe Dictionary of the Romanian DEX against a jewishschool inToulouse in march 2012 attack terror Toulouse holocaust/ Holocaust denial by politicians - Definition – Association of Roma persons with – Changes of the official academic official ofthe Changes – Articles about the attack 88 2 2 3 4 111 240 236 58 CEU eTD Collection de aaveala acces functii c) drepturile politice, maltratarilor din partea maltratarilororic din partea b) dreptul la securitatea persoanei persoanei lab) dreptul securitatea în urm special exercitarea (2) Principiul egalit Principiul (2) public offices access to c) political rights, namely electoral rights, the right toparticipate at the public life and tohave institution. or b) right the to safety and protection by against state the any violence by individual,any group, guaranteed especially in the following exercising rights: The principle of equality of citizens and the exclusion of privileges and discrimination are OrdinanceGovernment2000 nr.137/31 August,– Prohibiting discrimination of any kind identity. the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural,linguistic and religious to minorities national to belonging right the persons of and guarantees recognizes The State Art.6.1 political adherence, property or social origin.” discrimination on account of race, nationality, ethnic origin,language, religion, sex, opinion, “Romania is the common andindivisible homeland of all its citizens,any without Art. 4.2 Constitution of Romania: Legislation: definitions thatform basisthe of codesinthe codebook. this and legislation of followingRomanian pieces readthe please starting coding Before hatespeech forusergenerated and I. Codingprotocol codebook hate speech generated user for codebook and protocol 2. Coding Appendix: ă tii între cet între tii ú i anume drepturile electorale, dreptul de a participa la viata publica ú i demnitati i demnitati publice; ă ă rui sauinstitutie; individ, grup rui toarelor drepturi: toarelor ă teni, al excluderii privilegiilor privilegiilor excluderii al teni, ú i la obtinerea protectiei statului impotriva violentelor sau violentelor impotriva i statului la protectiei obtinerea 89 ú i discriminarii sunt garantate sunt i discriminarii ú i CEU eTD Collection sexual social categorie vizeaz comunit impotriva sauunei unui îndreptatdepersoane sau unei grup persoane, ofensatoare, umilitoare ú penale, orice comportament manifestat în public, având caracter de propaganda nationalist- dac ordonante, prezentei conform contraventie, “Constituie sexual orientation.” or conviction category, person, group, community in connection with theirrace, nationality, ethnicity, religion, social degrading, hostile, humiliating or offensive atmosphere against, orharms the dignity of a orany has propaganda, chauvinistbehavior as that of intimidating,purpose creating an of nationalist- has character the that behavior any public acontravention is considered “It 15. Art lacriteriualtori intimidant, careduce ostil, creareaunuicadruofensiv. degradant apartenentala ocategorie defavorizat rasa, nationalitate, etnie, limba, religie, categorie social (5) Constituie hartuireConstituie (5) offensive anintimidating, criteria environment. creates any or degrading hostile, other that appartenance toa defavorized category, age, handicap, refugee or asylum seeking status, or ethnicity,language, religion, social category, convictions, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, criteria on of based any is race, act harassment and penalized Constitutes Art 2.5 domeniul politic, economic, social a drepturilor omului efect restrangerea, înl restrangerea, efect HIV, apartenenta la categorie defavorizat apartenenta o HIV, convingeri, sex, orientare sexual restrictie sau preferinta, pe baza de rasa, nationalitate, etnie, limba, religie, categorie social categorie etnie,limba,religie, bazanationalitate, pe derasa, saupreferinta, restrictie întelege prin se “(1)Potrivitdiscriminare oriceordonante, excludere, prezentei deosebire, economic, social and cultural and any other domains of the public life” human andrights, of fundamental freedoms, or of recognizedrights bylaw,in political,the the effect of restricting, limiting recognition, use or exercise in conditions of equality, of has isaimed or that criteria, any and other category adefavorized to appartenence infection, social category, sex, sexual orientation, age, handicap, not contagious chronic disease, HIV religion, language, ethnicity, race, nationality, on based preference or restriction exclusion, be is any ordinance to considered presentdiscrimination “Accordingthe to differentiation, ART. 2 ovin ă ă ă , de instigare la instigare urarasial , de aacestuia.” atingerea demnit atingerea ă ti ti ú i legat de apartenenta acestora laanumit acestora o apartenenta i legat de ă sau lacategorie defavorizat o sau ú ă i a libert turarea recunoa turarea ú i se sanctioneaz ă tii ori intimidare, degradante, ostile, de crearea uneiatmosfere tii ori ă tilor fundamentaletilor saua drepturilor recunoscute delege,în ă ă sau nationala, ori acel comportament care are care are ca scop sau ori acel comportament saunationala, , varsta, handicap, boala cronica necontagioasa, infectare ú i cultural sau în orice alte domenii ale vietii publice.” ă ú , varsta, handicap, statut de refugiat ori azilant sau orice terii, folosintei folosintei sau exercitterii, ă contraventional orice comportament pe criteriu pe de comportament orice contraventional ă , precum , precum 90 ă ori de convingerile, sexul sau orientarea sexul deconvingerile, ori ú ă i orice alt criteriu care are ca scop sau cascop i criteriu careare alt orice ă rasa, nationalitate, etnie, religie, nationalitate, rasa, , convingeri, gen, orientare sexual ă fapta legii nuintra subincidenta ă rii, în conditii în rii, de egalitate, conditii ă ă , , CEU eTD Collection of fundamental freedoms, or of rights recognized by law, in the political, economic, social and cultural and any domains of other publicthe life2 (Art. economic, of OUG 137/31Aug. 2000) political, in the law, by recognized rights of or freedoms, fundamental of restricting, limiting recognition, use or exercise in conditions of equality, of human of rights, effect hasthe is and or aimed that criteria, any and other appartenance group on based is be consideredto Discrimination alleged negative behavior. (International encyclopedia of Communication:2051). consisting ofshort,usuallynegative labels lengthynarratives about or anoutgroup’s epithets group brief comprise sometimes that insults, based group and pejoratives derogatory cultural, racial, and ethnic illusions about targeted groups . Also including distort thehistoryoftargeted groups,toeliminate their agency, tocreateandmaintain and contempt, promoting or supporting discrimination, prejudice origin, genderand (Encyclopedia or violence. of communication,Political 2007:301) Expressing prejudice, Seeking to national orientation, based sexual religion, onrace,ethnicity, demean, discriminate and ridicule, threaten, abuse, degrade, humiliate, terrorize, to aimed speech containing Comments hatespeechcodebook isdefined as: Based above onthe legislationandtheencyclopedic definitionsforthepurpose of this 2007:2051) ofCommunication, encyclopedia - inInternational speechandethnophaulism (Hate vehicle1998). a (Asante forexpressingas pejoratives” and targeted ethnic groups, about racial, illusions and maintain derogatory to create cultural, and groups, oftargeted theagency groups,toeliminate todistortthehistoryoftargeted speech functions “Hate groups.” targeted toward andviolence prejudice, promote discrimination, “Verbalizations, written messages, symbols, ofpeople”or class 1998). (Asante or symbolic actsor threatstoward ofverbal aggressionthatspecific ridicule, expresses“a form group a contempt, hatred, that demean and degrade, and, as such, 1995). &Delgado (Lederer can defamatory, speech slanderous, “Obscene, thatholds orhateful, reasonable tobeharmful” potential a (Encyclopedia ofPolitical communication, 2007:301) discriminate based on ethnicity,race, religion, sexual orientation,national origin,or gender” speech “hate Definitions: ---the use of words as weapons that terrorize, humiliate, degrade, abuse, threaten, and threaten, abuse, degrade, humiliate, terrorize, that weapons as words of use ---the any differentiation, exclusion,or restriction preference any differentiation, 91 CEU eTD Collection ‘group B, C,‘group D’ to out-groups. also are in-groups whileconsidered A’refers asbeing In of sub-codes‘group the comment. the to part lines subject the and users the of nicknames/usernames other The or content. similar advertisements, contain or content no have that comments to refers – ‘junk/spam’ appertenance. their group making to reference individuals without at targeted comments refer group ‘profanity” ‘violence’ inthe while groups/communities, non-hate ‘insult’, to members or to targeted comments to refers ‘Hate’ legitimate discussion. to i.e. ‘legit’ code by the software the willbeassigned automatically group from this the assigned acode coded not should have that withcomments beenNon-hate sub-codes. allowed other any have that comments to according‘insult’,assigned be to the termscannot that of exception ‘legit’ with the comment toone be codescan assigned multiple and and conditions ‘hate’ types of refer to codes orlevel second The ‘violence’, codes. in these of one canbecoded termscomments ‘non-hate’ and ‘hate’, are of codes level use first The oflevels. two on the be coded will sitesComments will be ‘junk/spam’Coding frame: – all other comments that have not been 92 CEU eTD Collection Superiority/Inferiority/Normality Threats Extermination/Murder/Rape Violence ‘ thetoplevelcode. be automaticallycodedwith type of hate speech inAfter the comment.you coded Youthe maycommentThis is a alsotop level code. withPleasechoose assign itthe to comments a thattop-codesub-code contain any of the elements ‘hate’firstof the above definition. inyou this may choosecaseencyclopediaof Communication 2007:2051) the additional comment will sub-codes usually alsonegative labels orlengthy narratives aboutreferring anoutgroup’s alleged negative behavior. (International including pejorativesto and group based insults, thatthe sometimes comprise brief group epithets consisting of short, agency, to create and maintain derogatory cultural, racial, and ethnic illusions about targeted groups . Alsodiscrimination, prejudice and violence. Seeking to distort the history of targeted groups, to eliminate theirPolitical communication, 2007:301) Expressing prejudice, andcontempt, promoting or supporting discriminate based on race,ethnicity, and religion,sexual demean, orientation, nationalridicule, origin, or gender (Encyclopediathreaten, of abuse, degrade, humiliate, terrorize, to aimed speech containing Comments Hate hate speech II. Codebookforusergenerated Insults Hate’ typesubcodes superiority. Comments that argue forthe preferential treatment of the (language/religion/sexual orientation) of superiorthe group due to its inferior group should submit to the will/adopt some of the characteristics should be limited due rights to their their of inferiority. some or Comments that rights, claim no thatB have the group to belonging persons or be normal, thus superior. Also including comments that argue that group B orientation/gender) to group B, or that the group A is what is considered to superior according to some criteria(ethnicity/language/race/religion/sexual Comments that claim that group Aor(people belonging to group A)is because....' us provoke not should 'You end”, an “We tolerated your behavior/claim/existence but our patience is coming to for rights. Example: “You should stopwhatclaims your group is doingtheir orelse…”. abandon or behavior, their modify, not B do of group members Comments that contain implied threats, without explicit violence if 'The best solutionExample: would group. be that to to get rid/hangbelonging all of persons groupor B.' group minority of a murder Comments with extre calling orsuggesting the rape, torture of peoplecomments belonging to for group B. label extreme the add Also group. that to belonging persons example that call/advocate/threaten with murder of a minority group or 'extermination/murder/rape forcomments withextreme violence code for the add also Please ofcommunities. members against communities also including comments that advocate forviolent actions Comments that make open threats or calls to violence against members of ironically orSupplex libellul Valahorum, and in case of \'mitici\' when it is used auto- ‘valah’ when itisused in referring to history Country The i.e. of Valahia, (Romanians), Papisti (Catholics). Judgement should be used inthe case of (Homosexuals), Jidani,gaozar Jidraci (Jews);curist, Valahi, Rromania,homolau, mitici,(Roma), soldovenicioroi ciora, (Hungarians); huni, sogor, boaghen, bozgor, Examples: appartenance. group to referring Comments that contain insults/ derogatory epithets/labels based onor 93 me violence that call/advocate for the extermination, the for call/advocate that violence me CEU eTD Collection Denying rights (political/civil) interests/Enemies/Threat Conspiracy/Foreign Religious extremism History Homosexuality-Pedophilia Holocaust -blame shifting Animals/Sub-human Exclusion/This is ourcountry Stereotypes/Generalization/Prejudice actions against them or invalidate their claims for certain rights or for equal for or rights certain for claims their orinvalidate them against actions certain discrimination, their justify would and or anti-social despicable, are members of group B have certain negative characteristics/behaviors, that Comments arguing that just by being memberof group Bor the all superi minority groups including rights forpolitical representation/political Comments that dispute ordeny civil orpolitical rights a threat. are they that or state/people/society, ofthe enemies are orleaders members its group, that for Comments that imply that by being member of a group or seeking interests. or rightsmalicious foreign some or serve country/society, the against Comments that imply that members of a group B are part of conspiracy based B on religiousgroup for arguments. contempt express or demean, insult B, ofgroup rights (secular) Comments that threaten orcall foraction against orfor limiting civil arguments. Comments that call foractions against history. the a minorityA along group based to ongroup historical of that members by done allegedly injustices or acts on based B, group to belonging people of mistreatment or Comments that disqualify t pedophiles. are or tendencies related leadsto, topedophilia or that homosexualpeople have pedophile Comments that argument explicitly orimplicitly that homosexuality is them. to happened what deserved so they Romania to communism Jewsbrought The them”. to happened what deserved jews “The the holocaust”. for blame to themselves jewshave “The Comments that shift the blame for the holoca similar to animals/pests or sub-human Comments that compare orcall the members of a group to animals/pests, orientation” country youso should not keep yourlanguage/customs/traditions/sexual our is “This X here”, for ask to right no have you so country our is “This do”, to you want we whatever be do should you so country our is “This Examples: “this is our country if you don’t like it you are free to argument that the country belongs togroup A. group A. Comments that call for the expulsionof group B based onthe country belongs to group A or because the the because majorityclaims for grounds of less have the country guests/ status/are is in tolerated a have territory of the country. Also comments implying that members of group A legitimacy to ask for rights/exist/keep its customs or traditions on the argument that the countrythe on belongs toa group A therefore Bbased group B has of group no rights for claims invalidate therefore: and country Comments that claim that the majority group is the rightful “owner” of the sterilized” \'All B-s are terrorists\' because of characteristic X.”, “Group B are thieves so they should be customs/traditions that threatendespicable oursome society”. B has “Group“Group B is notyouth”. to be (A) trustedour corrupt will who immoral B are group of “People country/society.” our in ofliving incapable B are ofgroup “Members us.” B hate/despise ofgroup members “All criminals.” separatists who want to dismember the country.” “All of group B are Example: “We should be suspicious of group B because it consists of treatment. or group or 94 he he claims for rights orjustify the discrimination ust on the victims. Examples: of members of of members go to …. “ CEU eTD Collection Thrash/Spam Insult/Profanity Non-hate General hate/Discrimination Discrimination Disgrace for the country Holocaust Holocaust-denial/minimization Threat/Violence Expulsion - appologetic/justifications relating to the topic of the article or to the newspaper. Usually contain Usually newspaper. the to or article ofthe topic the to relating Comments which textualhave no content, have argument,no or text basedgroup on appartenance. Comments containing direct personal threats addressed toindividuals not vulgarity profanity, violent non Including appartenance. group on based not article of the author the or individuals to addressed epithets insults/derogatory personal direct containing Comments vote so not to allow the B “Let\ Example: rights. to access the toprevent actions based group for Call B. group to belong or aminority are they that ground activity, right to demonstrate, right to appear orspeak in public on the Communication:2051). alleged negative behavior. (International encyclopedia of short, usually negative labels orlengthy narratives aboutoutgroup’s an based insults, that sometimes comprise brief group epithets consisting of illusions about targeted groups Also. including pejoratives and group ethnic and racial, cultural, derogatory maintain and create to agency, their and violence.prejudice Seeking to distort discrimination, the history of supporting targeted or groups, to promoting eliminate contempt, and prejudice, Expressing 2007:301) communication, of Political (Encyclopedia gender based on race, ethnicity, re discriminate and demean, ridicule, threaten, abuse, degrade, humiliate, terrorize, to aimed speech containing -Comments categories above Comments with discriminatory content which does not fit into any of the other domains of publicthe life (Art.2 of OUG 137/31Aug. 2000) any and cultural and social economic, political, the in by law, recognized of rights or freedoms, offundamental and rights, human of equality, of conditions in exercise or use recognition, limiting restricting, of effect group on based or preference restriction exclusion, differentiation, beany to considered Comments that call/advocate fordiscrimination country. ofthe image bad the for blame Comments that argue that group Bisadisgrace f actions. their for justifications find or heroes as holocaust the in involved persons present to seek that Comments Code) Penal the to according offense (Criminal heroes” true are time the of leaders “The Romania”, in holocaust wasno “There Holocaust” the in part no “We had Examples: Romania. in holocaust no was there that claim th in ofRomania the role minimize seek that Comments be deported” should \'Out with B-s from the country\' “We should get rid of B’s” “All B-s territory, withor without specific reasons or arguments forthat action Ex. Comments that explicitly call for the expulsion of a group from the represenation/education” allowed to appear/speak in public”, “B-s have no right to have political appartenance and any other criteria, that is aimed or has the or has aimed is that criteria, other any and appartenance 95 -s to get into the parliament” “B-s should not be ligion, sexual orientation, national origin, or - orthe country orit is to Discrimination is 's all true A get out to e holocaust, or e holocaust, CEU eTD Collection Legit site and the legislation ‘legit’ – i.e. legitimate comments that respect the ethical guidelines of the All advertisments. non - coded comments will be automatically coded by the software as 96 CEU eTD Collection Table 3.2 Codes report Hate /Legitintheentiresample of Table 3.1.Proportion Appendix 3.Resultsofthecontent analysis HATE Discrimination - blameHolocaust shifting Holocaust-denial/minimization extremism Religious Animals/Sub-human Violence Threats History Expulsion Denying (political/civil) rights Superiority/Inferiority/Normality Extermination/Murder/Rape Exclusion/This is country our interests/Enemies/Threat Conspiracy/Foreign Stereotypes/Generalization/Prejudice Insults Legit Hate appology/justifications Holocaust, Fascism - Comments 2324 3597 Percent 37.99% 58.80% Comments 1106 120 141 148 158 165 186 194 245 341 397 522 73 81 86 88 71 97 Percent 18.08% 1.19% 1.32% 1.41% 1.44% 1.96% 2.31% 2.42% 2.58% 2.70% 3.04% 3.17% 4.01% 5.57% 6.49% 1.16% 8.53% Percent of Hate 10.54% 14.67% 17.08% 22.46% 47.59% 3.14% 3.49% 3.70% 3.79% 5.16% 6.07% 6.37% 6.80% 7.10% 8.00% 8.35% 3.06% CEU eTD Collection 3.3a. Newspapers hate/legit Newspapers 3.3a. alongthe sites ofhatecomments Table 3.3Proportion Newspapers Comments Articles Libera Romania Adevarul Hotnews Evz Gandul responding target HS Threat/Violence Thrash/Spam Insult/Profanity Legit NON-HATE Sterilization Hate-Spam for thecountry Disgrace Homosexuality-Pedophilia hate/Discrimination General Moderated HATE 13 24 10 21 16 2004 1250 1524 593 746 Comments Comments 3597 143 44 18 25 50 58 59 6 8 5 98 Count Hate 649 543 736 206 190 ecn Percent of Percent Non-hate Percent 58.80% 0.10% 0.13% 0.72% 2.34% 0.08% 0.29% 0.41% 0.82% 0.95% 0.96% Percent 32.39% 43.44% 48.29% 34.74% 25.47% Hate Percent of Hate Count Legit 1309 94.76% 621 731 381 555 0.16% 0.21% 1.16% 3.77% 0.22% 0.77% 1.08% 2.15% 2.50% 2.54% Percent 65.32% 49.68% 47.97% 64.25% 74.40% Legit 3.3b. Hate speech types Hatespeech 3.3b. HATE Sterilization Moderated Hate-Spam Insults

CEU eTD Collection Count % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All % of Hate 47.59% 18.08% 0.96% 0.77% 0.29% 0.22% 0.08% 2.54% ALL 1106 59 18 5 Gandul 56.25% 27.17% 0.26% 0.54% 0.26% 0.14% 0.07% 0.54% 414 99 4 4 1 49.54% 21.52% 1.84% 0.80% 0.55% 0.24% EVZ 269 10 0 3 - - Hotnews 20.53% 0.53% 0.13% 5.23% 39 1 0 0 - - - - Adevarul 16.62% 51.31% 2.59% 0.15% 0.05% 8.01% 0.46% 0.15% 333 52 3 1 Romania 24.76% Libera 0.51% 1.46% 8.60% 51 3 0 0 - - - - Prejudice Generalization/ Stereotypes/ Normality Inferiority/ Superiority/ Threats Extermination/Murder/Rape Violence HATE

CEU eTD Collection Count Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All % of Hate % of All 10.54% 22.46% 6.37% 2.42% 4.01% 6.07% 2.31% 8.53% 8.35% 3.17% ALL 522 194 148 245 141 Gandul 10.33% 11.15% 15.49% 23.10% 9.51% 4.59% 7.48% 4.99% 6.11% 2.95% 100 170 114 45 70 76 18.05% 5.34% 7.84% 5.89% 2.56% 4.16% 2.32% 9.58% 8.66% 3.76% EVZ 98 47 32 52 29 Hotnews 27.89% 3.68% 7.10% 6.84% 1.74% 0.54% 0.94% 2.11% 8.42% 2.14% 53 16 13 4 7 Adevarul 10.63% 22.80% 4.16% 7.39% 4.31% 1.40% 3.44% 1.35% 8.01% 2.59% 148 69 27 52 28 Romania 16.50% 25.73% Libera 0.97% 2.91% 8.94% 2.43% 0.84% 1.01% 0.34% 5.73% 53 34 6 2 5 History Homosexuality-Pedophilia - blameHolocaust shifting Animals/Sub-human Exclusion/This is country our HATE

CEU eTD Collection Count Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All % of Hate % of All 14.67% 3.49% 1.32% 5.16% 1.96% 5.57% 6.80% 2.58% 2.15% 0.82% ALL 158 120 341 50 81 Gandul 18.34% 1.09% 0.52% 5.84% 2.82% 8.86% 5.30% 2.56% 0.82% 0.39% 101 135 39 43 6 8 4.42% 1.92% 5.52% 2.40% 3.12% 7.18% 2.58% 1.12% 4.42% 1.92% EVZ 24 24 14 30 39 Hotnews 25.26% 10.00% 6.32% 1.61% 6.43% 2.55% 0.53% 0.13% 19 12 48 1 0 - - Adevarul 13.56% 2.93% 0.95% 9.24% 4.01% 1.30% 4.39% 2.99% 1.69% 0.55% 11 19 60 26 88 Romania 14.56% 12.62% 15.05% Libera 5.06% 4.37% 1.52% 5.23% 4.38% 3.88% 1.35% 30 26 31 8 9 Holocaust-denial/minimization Expulsion Denying (political/civil) rights interests/Enemies/Threat Conspiracy/Foreign extremism Religious HATE

CEU eTD Collection Count Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All % of Hate % of All 17.08% 8.00% 3.04% 6.49% 3.79% 1.44% 3.70% 1.41% 7.10% 2.70% ALL 165 186 397 86 88 Gandul 17.39% 7.88% 3.81% 8.40% 0.27% 0.13% 0.95% 0.46% 9.10% 4.40% 102 128 67 58 7 2 18.23% 7.55% 3.28% 7.92% 7.92% 3.44% 4.97% 2.16% 3.50% 1.52% EVZ 27 43 19 41 99 Hotnews 19.47% 18.42% 4.96% 4.69% 2.11% 0.54% 5.79% 1.47% 11 37 35 0 4 - - Adevarul 14.64% 4.93% 2.77% 0.90% 1.60% 4.74% 4.31% 1.40% 8.47% 2.74% 18 28 55 32 95 Romania 16.50% 19.42% Libera 8.74% 5.73% 3.04% 6.75% 5.34% 1.85% 6.31% 2.19% 34 11 13 18 40 General hate/Discrimination General Discrimination for thecountry Disgrace appology/justifications Holocaust, Fascism - HATE

CEU eTD Collection Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All Count % of Hate % of All 3.14% 1.19% 1.08% 0.41% 3.06% 1.16% 2.50% 0.95% ALL 58 73 25 71 Gandul 2.17% 1.05% 0.95% 0.46% 1.63% 0.79% 3.94% 1.90% 103 29 16 12 7 4.60% 2.00% 0.55% 0.24% 4.42% 1.92% 1.66% 0.72% EVZ 25 24 9 3 Hotnews 3.68% 0.94% 3.16% 0.80% 1.58% 0.40% 3 7 6 0 - - Adevarul 1.23% 0.40% 3.08% 1.00% 1.23% 0.40% 1.39% 0.45% 20 9 8 8 Romania 13.11% Libera 4.55% 2.43% 0.84% 0.49% 0.17% 3.88% 1.35% 27 5 8 1 Legit Thrash/Spam Threat/Violence Insult/Profanity HS target responding NON-HATE

CEU eTD Collection Count Count Count Count Count % of Non-Hate % of All % of Non-Hate % of All % of Non-Hate % of All % of Non-Hate % of All % of Non-Hate % of All 94.76% 58.80% 0.21% 0.13% 3.77% 2.34% 0.16% 0.10% 1.16% 0.72% ALL 3597 143 44 8 6 Gandul 92.65% 47.97% 0.13% 0.07% 5.70% 2.95% 0.51% 0.26% 1.01% 0.52% 104 731 45 1 4 8 87.71% 49.68% 0.42% 0.24% 8.19% 4.64% 3.67% 2.08% EVZ 621 58 26 3 0 - - Hotnews 99.82% 74.40% 0.18% 0.13% 555 1 0 0 0 ------Adevarul 96.61% 65.32% 0.30% 0.20% 0.07% 0.05% 0.59% 0.40% 2.58% 1.75% 1309 35 4 1 8 Romania 98.20% 64.25% Libera 0.26% 0.17% 0.52% 0.34% 1.03% 0.67% 381 4 0 1 2 - - Table 3.4.b. Hate speechtypesbasedontargetgroups legit / hate Target- 3.4.a. Table 3.4. Proportion of hatespeech against targetgroups HATE Topic Violence Hate-Spam Moderated Sterilization Insults Roma LGTB Jewish Hungarian Threats Extermination/Murder/Rape Articles Comments 17 18 41 7

CEU eTD Collection 1184 3640 409 848 121 136 100 684 32 8 - Hungarian Hate 1377 18.79% 173 431 334 0.88% 3.32% 3.74% 2.75% 0.22% - Percent 42.30% 36.40% 39.39% 37.83% Hate 225 15 27 28 10 9 - LGTB 105 Legit 2193 219 693 467 19.00% 0.76% 1.27% 2.28% 2.36% 0.84% - Percent 53.55% 58.53% 55.07% 60.25% Legit 117 46 8 5 5 - - Jewish 13.80% 0.94% 5.42% 0.59% 0.59% - - 75 10 36 5 7 7 - Roma 18.34% 2.44% 1.22% 8.80% 1.71% 1.71% - Expulsion (political/civil) Denying rights Enemies/Threat interests/ Conspiracy/ Foreign extremism Religious History Homosexuality-Pedophilia - blameHolocaust shifting Animals/Sub-human country Exclusion/This is our Prejudice Generalization/ Stereotypes/ Normality Superiority/ Inferiority/ HATE minimization Holocaust-denial/

CEU eTD Collection 147 121 229 153 304 259 101 45 1 2 - - Hungarian 1.24% 0.03% 4.04% 3.32% 6.29% 0.05% 4.20% 8.35% 7.12% 2.77% - - 104 29 49 57 61 81 14 68 2 8 - - LGTB 106 2.45% 0.17% 0.68% 4.14% 8.78% 4.81% 5.15% 6.84% 1.18% 5.74% - - 20 74 81 85 84 18 14 6 5 1 2 5 Jewish 10.02% 2.36% 8.73% 9.55% 9.91% 2.12% 1.65% 0.71% 0.59% 0.12% 0.24% 0.59% 26 23 10 74 4 2 5 4 6 - - - Roma 18.09% 0.98% 0.49% 6.36% 1.22% 0.98% 5.62% 2.44% 1.47% - - - Legit Thrash/Spam Threat/Violence Insult/Profanity responding target HS NON-HATE hate/Discrimination General Discrimination for thecountry Disgrace justifications apology/ Holocaust, Fascism - HATE

CEU eTD Collection 2193 12 57 41 41 1 1 8 2 Hungarian Hungarian 60.25% 0.33% 1.57% 1.13% 1.13% 0.03% 0.03% 0.22% 0.05% 693 21 33 22 6 3 5 1 1 LGTB LGTB 107 58.53% 0.51% 1.77% 2.79% 1.86% 0.25% 0.42% 0.08% 0.08% 467 37 57 7 9 7 3 2 - Jewish Jewish 55.07% 4.36% 0.83% 6.72% 1.06% 0.83% 0.35% 0.24% - 219 14 11 14 2 2 1 - - Roma Roma 53.55% 3.42% 0.49% 0.49% 2.69% 0.24% 3.42% - - Table 3.5.Hate speech topics onarticle Topic LGTB Jewish Hungarian Subtopic Homosexuality in general Toulouse terror attack University Medical Hu. Bucharest Pride/Gay Fest Pride/Gay Bucharest Billboard/Gay=Peadophile Gay survivors Holocaust Holocaust March 15/Csibi Barna of Szeklerland Autonomy/Bruxelles Office Kolozsvar/Cluj statue citizenship Dual reorganization Teritorial team Hockey Trianon

CEU eTD Collection Articles 10 8 4 7 5 4 4 4 6 3 1 8 8 4 Comments 597 236 489 294 293 124 295 447 250 103 753 820 483 488 108 Hate 245 101 174 104 202 119 396 136 201 179 97 89 54 45 Percent 41.04% 42.80% 35.58% 32.99% 30.38% 43.55% 35.25% 45.19% 47.60% 43.69% 52.59% 16.59% 41.61% 36.68% Hate Legit 306 109 298 190 197 190 240 126 344 678 270 289 69 47 Percent 51.26% 46.19% 60.94% 64.63% 67.24% 55.65% 64.41% 53.69% 50.40% 45.63% 45.68% 82.68% 55.90% 59.22% Legit Roma Topic Roma way of life Subtopic DEX-Definition Criminality

CEU eTD Collection Articles 2 3 2 Comments 240 111 58 109 Hate 92 60 21 Percent 38.33% 54.05% 36.21% Hate Legit 137 49 33 Percent 57.08% 44.14% 56.90% Legit CEU eTD Collection 4.3. Holocaust denial4.3. Holocaust 4.2. Homosexuality=Pedophilia 172 Stereotypes/Generalization/Prejudice 4.1. comments of hate Examples 4. Appendix pejorative term referring to Jews modified in order to bypass the profanity filter on sex with iswomen thefirststep towards homosexuality” #2587, “The homosexuals aresick people on border/intersectionthe with pedophilia. Anal 19 18:51:18 on adevarul.ro pay their state child support and social assistance.” filth humanity of has gatheredat this ethnic The Romanians group. have towork to “That’s no wonder! That’s what the gypsies are: thieves, vulgar and dirty. All the from from state” the assistance from the hard work of the working man.Get to work, no more begging “Shameful. They ( on 20 14:47:09 Hotnews.ro would kill any you’dRomanian meet” tried tokeep identity.their are nice …You on outsidethe but insidethe on you Romania “You ( 17:47:00 choose it, its in their being)” posted by …Why is it our fault that the Hungarians choose chauvinism (in fact they don’t “They ( HITLER OR ANTONESCU FINISHED THE JOB. Did Ideny something? No I “I don’t deny anything, butlet me express a regret: TOO BAD THAT NEITHER posted byobserver pro-communists…. All countries hadthe campsfor hostilethe population” #6427 “the Deportation of the Jews in the 2-nd World War was legitimate. They were posted byAnton Escu and strong. But who brought the communism to the world? The “What Holocaust???? There wasnosuch Only thing. the Nov 3rd, 08:49 on evz.ro the hungarians the hungarians ) by force, and you have terrorized and drove out all the romanians who posted by Costin the Roma on ) have occupied the land in question ( ) despise and hate us, and you ask US to be tolerant?. to US ask you and us, hate and despise ) on 18:45, 23 June 2011, onromanialibera.ro Mar Mar 6th, 16:58 ) spill out children one after another and get state social 110 on Jan 24th, 17:13 onevz.ro posted by Detinutul secuiesc george onhotnews.ro on posted by martha ji dans the Szeklerregionof posted by Ed____ 172 ji dans 2011-12-21 sustain up this on on “#1422 2011-12- 2012-04- CEU eTD Collection JIDANS!” #6299 THE TO DEATH fairytales!!! their and jidans filthy the of enough had We Cambodia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone or the blacks killed in America or the indians??? obsessively.Why? Why you writedon’t about childrenthe murderedin “All the time the “All #1404 did not. Regarding the jews I wish them to remain as many as I have baptized” posted by rsss jidans posted byanti-evrei and holocaust their andholocaust and suffering fables all repeated the on Mar Mar 8th, 08:57 111 on 2012-03-20 10:50:55 onadevarul.ro