Determining the intent of the speaker can provide extremely valuable information in determining the intensity of the action that needs to be taken against the speaker or to compensate for the expression.

While intent can be extremely hard to determine, past actions of the speaker, the way the speaker has selected the audience of the message and the way s(he) reacted after the speech are elements that can be rather easily determined and which offer valuable clues. Also, the messages hidden between the lines can also shed light as to the objectives of the speaker, even though they are harder to determine and doing it relies strongly on the experience of the evaluator

 Criteria to be considered

Past actions of the speaker with regards to the group targeted by the expression

Looking into the past actions of the speaker towards the group targeted by the expression can reveal whether the speaker holds negative feelings towards the group. If the speaker of a negative expression towards a group has in the past fought for the rights of members of that group and has never done anything detrimental to their interest, then it is highly unlikely that the negative expression was disseminated with bad intentions.

The opposite is true for somebody who has always engaged in negative actions against the group they are speaking against. The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Positive actions”, “Mixed actions / no actions”, “Negative actions”. When choosing the answer option, we recommend, when possible, to consider more recent actions of the speaker. In other words, if a speaker used to engage in positive actions towards the group targeted by the expression, but in recent years her / his behavior changed and now engages almost exclusively in negative actions, that this option should be chosen instead of the “Mixed actions / no actions”.

Reaction of the speaker after promoting the hate message

The way speakers react after disseminating a hateful narrative can provide clues as to the speaker’s actual intentions. Showing true remorse can hint towards the speaker not actually meaning any harm from the use of the expression, while continuing incitement can consolidate the idea that the hate message was premeditated.

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Apologies offered”, “No reaction”, “Continued incitement”. Here also it is important to read between the lines and try to determine if the apologies offered are sincere, or just a way for the speaker to escape potential sanctions.

Probable objectives of the speaker

The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Voicing the concerns of the speaker’s supporters / Academic debate /Promoting or expressing the speaker’s religious beliefs”, “Improving own image among the target audience of the message”, “Discrediting the group targeted by the expression”, “Limiting the rights of the group targeted by the expression”, “Call to violent action”. If the expression follows multiple objectives, the most severe one should be considered.

Intended audience of the hate message

While some hate messages reach a larger audience than the one initially intended, understanding who the speaker wanted to address through their message is key to evaluating their intentions. The reason for this is that different audiences tend to react differently to the specific messages they are being presented.

While something could sound sarcastic to a group of people, others might take the thing for granted and act upon it. The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are: “audience not likely to have negative feelings towards the targets of the expression”,   “audience likely to have negative feelings towards the targets of the expression”, “audience having strong negative feelings towards the targets of the expression”.