Q1.1: Is the group targeted by the hate speech a potentially vulnerable group?
YES (2)
NO (1)
Q1.2: Has there been discrimination or acts of violence carried out in recent years against the group targeted by the hate speech (select the worst act)
No acts of violence /discrimination (0)
Verbal violence (1)
Psychological violence (2)
General discrimination (3)
Institutionalized discrimination (4)
Property destruction (5)
Restriction of human or civil rights (6)
Physical violence (7)
Murder motivated by hatred (8)
Q1.3: Extent of negative stereotypes towards the group targeted by the expression
Little extent (1)
Moderate extent (2)
High extent (3)
Q1.4: Connection of the hate message with the negative stereotypes against the group targeted by the expression
No connection (1)
Allusions towards negative stereotypes (2)
Affirmation and / or consolidation of negative stereotypes (3)
Q1.5: Political representation of the group targeted by the expression
Consolidated political representation (1)
In-group political representation (2)
Limited political representation (3)
Lack of political representation (4)
Q1.6: Extent of support available for the group targeted by the expression
Generalized support (1)
Moderate support (2)
Lack of support (3)
Section 2: Speaker
Q2.1: Status of the speaker:
Regular citizen (1)
Political figure (2)
Influencer (3)
Educator (4)
Public servant (5)
Q2.2: Capacity in which the speaker made the statement
Regular citizen (1)
Political figure (2)
Influencer (3)
Educator (4)
Public servant (5)
Q2.3: Credibility of the speaker among the intended audience of the hate message
Little to no credibility (1)
Limited credibility (2)
Moderate credibility (3)
High credibility (4)
Q2.4: Credibility of the speaker in general
Little to no credibility (1)
Limited credibility (2)
Moderate credibility (3)
High credibility (4)
The expression did not reach any audiences other than the ones intended (0)
Q2.5: Influence of the speaker on the group targeted by the expression
Little to no influence (1)
Limited influence (2)
Moderate influence (3)
High influence (4)
Section 3: Intent
Q3.1: Past actions of the speaker with regards to the group targeted by the expression
Positive actions (1)
Mixed actions / no actions (2)
Negative actions (3)
Q3.2: Reaction of the speaker after promoting the hate message
Apologies offered (1)
No reaction (2)
Continued incitement (3)
Q3.3: Probable objectives of the speaker
Voicing the concerns of the speaker’s supporters / Academic debate /Promoting or expressing the speaker’s religious believes (1)
Improving own image among the target audience of the message (2)
Discrediting the group targeted by the expression (3)
Limiting the rights of the group targeted by the expression (4)
Call to violent / discriminatory action (5)
Q3.4: Intended audience of the hate message
audience not likely to have negative feelings towards the targets of the expression (1)
audience likely to have negative feelings towards the targets of the expression (2)
audience having strong negative feelings towards the targets of the expression (3)
Section 4: Content and form
Q4.1: Degree to which the expression is provocative or violence of the message
Low degree of violence (1)
Moderate degree of violence (2)
Hight degree of violence (3)
Q4.2: Form taken by the expression
Protected (1)
Unprotected (2)
Q4.3: How direct was the message
Indirect (1)
Direct (2)
Q4.4: Degree to which the message can be considered a call to action
No call to action (1)
Could motivate some people to take action (2)
Mentions / suggests actions to be taken against the targets of the expression (3)
Q4.5: Correlation with other dominant hate narratives
No correlation with dominant hate narratives (1)
Some correlation with dominant hate narratives (2)
Expression of a dominant hate narrative (3)
Q4.6: Illegal status of hate message
Does not violate national criminal provisions regarding hate speech (1)
Violates national criminal provisions regarding hate speech (2)
Section 5: Extent of speech act
Q5.1: Nature of the expression
Private (1)
Public (2)
Q5.2: Means of dissemination
Likely inefficient at reaching the intended audience (1)
Likely moderately efficient at reaching the intended audience (2)
Likely efficient at reaching the intended audience (3)
Q5.3: Frequency of the dissemination of the hate message
Single time dissemination (1)
Moderate frequency of dissemination (2)
High frequency of dissemination (3)
Q5.4: Quantity of disseminated materials
Few disseminated materials (1)
Moderate number of disseminated material (2)
High number of disseminated materials (3)
Q5.5: Accessibility of hate message
Low accessibility (1)
Medium accessibility (2)
High accessibility (3)
Q5.6: Extent of the reached audience
Low extent (1)
Medium extent (2)
High extent (3)
Section 6: Likelihood of the expression to generate violent / discriminatory events
Q6.1: Effects produced by the hate message
No effects produced (1)
Audience engaged in verbal violent conduct (2)
Audience engaged in violent / discriminatory actions (3)
Q6.2: Does the audience have the means to act on the incitement?
No (1)
Yes(2)
Q6.3: Probability of the audience acting on the hate message
Low likelihood of action taking place (1)
Medium likelihood of action taking place (2)
High likelihood of action taking place (3)
Scenario 1 (No action):
Sometimes, acting against a hateful expression can do more harm than good, as it could offer unwanted publicity to both the speaker and her / his message. This is the case when the speaker is someone with very little power or authority and (s)he has expressed the hateful message in front of a small audience whose members don’t value her / his judgements and are very unlikely to act against the group targeted by the expression. From the data you have inputted in our calculator, we believe that this is the situation in the case you have presented. If you personally know the speaker and (s)he is your peer, than you can also confront her / him politely and in private and express your feelings or views about what has been said.
From the data you have entered, it looks like the best course of action is to just try and confront the hateful expression in the few places in which it appears. Check out our advice on how to build your own human rights-based narrative and start building your response!
Scenario 3 (Start developing alternative narrative campaigns)
Also, if you encountered the hateful expression online, remember that all respectable social media platforms have little tolerance towards hate speech. It could be a good idea to also report the hateful content in order for them to take take it down. And if they don’t do that, then try to get help from their trusted flaggers. Most of the members of the International Network Against Cyber Hate have this status. Find the one in your country at this link.
Scenario 4 (Take content down)
It seems that you have witnessed quite a violent form of hate speech, but it is one that doesn’t really have the potential to lead to direct action against its targets, so seeking legal action against the speaker would not be a proportionate response. While these expressions don’t belong in the public space and they shouldn’t be tolerated, speaking up against them or trying to create an alternate discourse about the groups targeted by the expression will probably just do more harm than good by offering unwanted publicity to the original hate message. What you can do is ask whoever is managing the platform that hosts the hate speech message to remove it.
If you have seen the hateful expression on social media, then removing it should be rather easy: you can just report it by using the tools provided by the platforms. And if it isn’t removed, then try to get help from their trusted flaggers. Most of the members of the International Network Against Cyber Hate have this status. Find the one in your country at this link. If you have noticed it on a different website, then it could be a little trickier: if a reporting option is not available, you might have to contact the manager of the website and ask for a removal via email. But hey! Fighting hate speech is worth the effort.
Scenario 5 (Seek civil or administrative action against the speaker)
From the data you have offered, it looks like you have identified a situation which can constitute a civil or administrative offence. If you want, you should file a complaint to your national institution responsible for sanctioning hate speech that is not of a criminal nature. You probably have a good chance to win.
If you encountered the hateful expression online, remember that all respectable social media platforms have little tolerance towards hate speech. It could be a good idea to also report the hateful content in order for them to take it down, but not before saving a copy to show to the authorities you are going to petition. If the social network doesn’t take the content down, then try to get help from their trusted flaggers. Most of the members of the International Network Against Cyber Hate have this status. Find the one in your country at this link.
Scenario 6 (Seek criminal action)
It looks like you have identified an extremely serious case of hate speech, for which criminal action is recommended. Make sure to archive any materials that can help the criminal authorities in your country to prosecute the speaker and make these materials available to them.
Scenario 7 (Engage in advocacy)
Analyzing the data you have provided, you have identified a case of hate speech that is serious enough to require criminal action, but there is no legislation in your country on which to base your complaint. We encourage you to start planning an advocacy campaign to change the legislation to make it work against severe cases of hate speech.
