Section 1: Context

Q1.1: Determining whether the group targeted by the expression is a potentially vulnerable group.

  • YES (2)
  • NO (1)

Q1.2: Type of acts of violence / discrimination carried out in recent years against the group targeted by the expression (select the worst act)

  • No acts of violence / discrimination (0)
  • Verbal violence (1)
  • Psychological violence (2)
  • General discrimination (3)
  • Institutionalised 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)

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)

Q2.4: Credibility of the speaker

  • 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)

Q3.4: 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)

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)

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)

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 feeling about what has been said.

But look, everyone should act according to her / his conscience, so if you still want to take action, then by all means speak up against what was being said! Check out our advice on how to build your own human rights based narrative  and then how to promote it. 

Scenario 2 (Engage in counter discourse)

From the data you have entered, it looks like 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)

Hmm! It looks like you are up against an expression that, while not being very violent and not likely to motivate audiences to take action against its targets, is still pretty harmful and has reached quite a lot of people. The best thing to do is probably to shift the audience’s perspective altogether. Check out our advice on how to develop communication strategies and how to make sure that the narrative you are promoting is grounded in human rights. 

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 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 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 content on 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.

Also, alternatively or in parallel with seeking civil or administrative action, you can also build an alternative narrative campaign to change the perspective of the general audience regarding the targets of the hateful narrative. We have prepared a guide on how to do this and how to make sure that the narrative you are promoting is grounded in human rights.

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.