How to analyse the speaker of the hate speech
It is also important to look into how much the speaker has abandoned his political / social / moral obligations when engaging in hate speech. Engaging in hate speech is more serious for public servants, who must not discriminate among citizens, than it is for politicians, who are supposed to act as the voice of their constituency and which might hold rather radical views towards some social groups.
Criteria to be considered
Status of the speaker
The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the following: “Regular citizen”, “Political figure”, “Public figure or influencer ”, “Educator”, “Public servant”. They are to be evaluated based on the general perception of the audience of the expression regarding the social status of the speaker. “Regular citizen” is to be chosen when the person engaging in hate speech has no particular social status that would place her or him above the audience from a power relation perspective.
“Political figure” is to be chosen for politicians or for people strongly associated with social movements, even when these movements are not organised as political parties (e.g. union leaders, NGO representatives etc.). “Public figure or influencer” should be chosen when the speaker is a well-known figure who does not engage (primarily) in political work. Examples of public figures or influencers would be actors, vloggers, journalists, artists. “Educator” is to be chosen for speakers that are teachers, trainers, university professors etc. “Public servant” is to be chosen when the person engaging in hate speech is supposed to serve any member of the society without discriminating against any of them.
Capacity in which the speaker made the statement
This criterion adds a new layer to the previous one. Most of the time, the status of the speaker (as seen by the audience of the message) is the same as the capacity in which they deliver the expression. An example would be a politician delivering a speech in a parliament.
However, sometimes, the capacity differs from the status, such as when a politician’s private conversation is leaked in the public space, or when a vlogger who is also an educator engages in hate speech during class, rather than on their Tik Tok channel. The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity, are the same as for the status of the speaker: “Regular citizen”, “Political figure”, “Public figure or influencer”, “Educator”, “Public servant”.
Credibility of the speaker among the intended audience of the hate message
The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Little to no credibility”, “Limited credibility”, “Moderate credibility”, “High credibility”. This assessment can be sometimes hard to make, especially if the target audience of the hate message is not familiar to the evaluator.
However, generally, the more similar the values and beliefs of the target audience are to those assumed or associated to the speaker, the higher the credibility the speaker will likely have. Assessing the values and beliefs of the target audience can be done by estimating who the audience is composed of and relying on the previous experience or the expert knowledge of the person making the evaluation.
Credibility of the speaker
Similar to the previous criterion, the credibility of the speaker in the eyes of the audience exposed to the expression is also important to evaluate. However, this is required only in those cases in which the expression has reached audiences beyond the ones initially intended by the speaker. The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Little to no credibility”, “Limited credibility”, “Moderate credibility”, “High credibility” and “The expression did not reach any audiences other than the ones intended”.
Influence of the speaker on the group targeted by the expression
The answer options we are proposing, in order of severity are the following: “Little to no influence”, “Limited influence”, “Moderate influence”, “High influence”. In order to assess this, the evaluator should look into how much damage the actions of the speaker acting in accordance to her / his status can cause to the group targeted by the expression. At one end of the spectrum you would have a regular citizen engaging in hate speech against a group whose members he is likely to never meet, while at the other end you would have a public servant whose daily work involves protecting the human rights of people against whom (s)he is speaking.
Read an example of an advanced analysis of hate speech