Analysing an expression that could constitute hate speech should look beyond what was said, by whom, about who or in which context and also consider the magnitude of the dissemination efforts, or the reach and extent of the act of hate speech. This means concentrating on the medium in which the speech has been disseminated, the frequency and the quantity of the material being disseminated, and the extent to which the audience was reached (a measure of the efficiency of the dissemination efforts).

 Criteria to be considered

Nature of the expression

This is the most basic level of analysis and means identifying if the message was expressed in a public or a private context. Expressions disseminated in private contexts, while potentially revealing of a person’s true views towards the targets of the message, does not aim at producing results for the speaker and is, in fact, protected by the right to one’s privacy.

A private context can be considered any setting such as a private party or event, a family setting, or a closed group form of communications, such as a mailing list (where people sharing the same interest have asked to be included) or a closed social network group. An expression initially made in a private context which is then leaked to the public by the speaker or with the speaker’s agreement, should be considered as having taken place in a public context.

---

Means of dissemination

Analysis based on this criterion should look at the channels through which the message has been disseminated and evaluate their potential to reach either large audiences or the audience intended by the speaker. The answer options we are proposing are “Likely inefficient at reaching the intended audience”, “Likely moderately efficient at reaching the intended audience”, “Likely efficient at reaching the intended audience”. As a general rule, written news outlets (printed newspapers, local websites) should be considered less efficient in reaching intended audiences than national radio or television, at least in regards to older audiences.

On the other hand, social media and new media can be considered more efficient than traditional media when it comes to younger audiences. Public discourses which are then not further distributed by the use of other media should be considered less efficient, as long as they were given in front of a general audience, but can also be considered “likely efficient” when delivered in front of an audience made up of supporters of the speaker or his ideology (e.g. an antisemitic discourse at a far-right rally).

---

Frequency of the dissemination of the hate message

The evaluator should look into how many times / how often the speaker has repeated the hate message, either word by word or by rewording it. The answer options we are proposing, in the order of their severity, are: “Single time dissemination”, “Moderate frequency of dissemination”, “High frequency of dissemination”.

The answer options “moderate frequency” and “high frequency” should be decided in the particular communicational context in which the expression is made. Clues as to how much the speaker “pushes” the expression can be found by looking, for example, as to how different are the contexts in which (s)he is bringing the subject up, or how natural / unnatural the subject is being brought up by the speaker.

---

Quantity of disseminated materials

This criterion is easier (or even possible) to analyse for printed materials that are being disseminated, such as flyers, brochures, books etc. The answer options we are proposing, in the order of their severity, are: ”Few disseminated materials”, “Moderate number of disseminated material”, “High number of disseminated materials”.

---

Accessibility of hate message

Evaluating the severity of a hate message should also be done by looking at how easy the process of accessing the information has been done by the speaker. There is one thing to have a hateful post on the timeline of the Facebook page managed by the speaker and a whole different thing to have it pinned right at the top of it. The answer options we are proposing are “Low accessibility”, “Medium accessibility” and “High accessibility”.

---

Extent of the audience reached

This criterion is very hard to estimate, but offers valuable input in determining the severity of hate speech. It should be analysed keeping in mind the intended audience of the expression, but the general audience should also be taken into account for cases in which a “specialised” message made its way to the general public.

Strategies to evaluate the extent of the reached audience can involve “guesstimating” it from the engagements a social media post had from its audience or looking into how many (media) platforms have shared the message and corroborating this information with their usual audience profile. The answer options we are proposing are “Low extent”, “Medium low” and “High extent”.

2021-03-16T05:16:00