Analysing the context means understanding the social and cultural landscape in which the hate speech subjected to the analysis operates. The determination that needs to be done has to do with how vulnerable the target of the hate speech is from a social, cultural or political perspective.

While hate speech can target any social group, it is obvious that members of majority population, with easier access to political rights, education etc. are less vulnerable than potentially marginalised groups who have been subjected to a long history of negative stereotyping, lack of access to all kinds of services and weak political self-determination

 Criteria to be considered

Determining whether the group targeted by the expression is a potentially vulnerable group

This is a binary assessment (Yes / No) that can be done by looking into whether the group represents a minority from an ethnical / racial / religious / sexual / gender orientation / social status / other criteria view and lack of a position of equal power. Belonging to a minority that holds a position of power (e.g. large business owners, who are minority on grounds of social status) should yield a “No” answer on this criterion. In case of an overlap of group identities (e.g. the target of the expression is both a large business owner and a member of the Roma community), the criterion should be applied to the group targeted by the expression (it should yield “Yes” if the person was attacked on grounds of being Roma and “No” if the person was attacked on grounds of being a large business owner).

Type of acts of violence / discrimination carried out in recent years against the group targeted by the expression

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the following: “Verbal violence”, “Psychological violence”, “Generalised discrimination by fellow citizens”, “Institutionalised discrimination” “Property destruction”, “Generalised and institutionalised restrictions of human or civil rights”, “physical violence”, “murder motivated by hatred”. Choosing the answer should take into consideration the most severe situations in which members of the group targeted by hate speech have found themselves in recent years and which cannot be considered an isolated case.

Extent of negative stereotypes towards the group targeted by the expression

We are proposing a three-level approach, with “Some extent”, “Moderate extent” and “High extent” as the answer options. Little extent means that there are just a few people who hold negative stereotypes against the group, while, at the other end of the spectrum, “High extent” means that negative stereotypes are generalised in the society.

Connection of the hate message with the negative stereotypes against the group targeted by the expression

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the following: “No connection”, “allusions towards negative stereotypes”, “affirmation and / or consolidation of negative stereotypes”.

Political representation of the group targeted by the expression

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the following: “Consolidated political representation”, “In-group political representation”, “Limited political representation”, “Lack of political representation”. “Lack of political representation” should be chosen when there are no well-known elected officials who are self-assumed members of the group targeted by the expression. In-group political representation should be chosen when the only well-known elected officials are exclusively members of a party that was formed with the main goal of representing the group targeted by the expression. “Consolidated political representation” is to be chosen when there are multiple well-known elected officials belonging to the group targeted by the expression and these elected officials are members of political different political parties with different ideologies.

Extent of movements supporting the group targeted by the expression

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the following: “Generalised support”, “Moderate support” and “Lack of support”. Lack of support is to be chosen when there are few to none local or national stakeholders (NGOs, academic institutions, influencers, regular citizens etc.) who are regularly and publicly supporting the rights of the group targeted by the expression. At the other end of the spectrum, “Generalised support” is to be chosen when public support is shown regularly and by as many stakeholders as possible.