Introduction
The issue of hate crimes and hate speech is incredibly controversial because some people believe that banning or regulating online or offline hate crimes may affect the expression of free speech per se. Both sides of the debate are not willing to give up: supporters of hate crime regulation argue that it is necessary to ensure stability and equality within a society, while opponents argue that it might pose some danger to democracy and free expression of will. Although both sides of the argument may have some points, one thing remains obvious — some groups and populations are more prone to becoming the victims of hate crimes, and the consequences might be detrimental. The problem is that there is no known way to balance control and freedom so as not to threaten democratic ideals. Nowadays, there are few solutions that can be practically applied to address this issue. Thus, hate speech are dangerous acts of hatred that are focused on spreading prejudice and segregation, so efficient means of regulating such acts are needed to ensure universal stability and tolerance, although such means still have to be discovered and utilized.
https://www.niot.org/blog/conversing-online-n-word-not-ok
What is it?
According to the FBI, a hate crime is a criminal violation against an individual motivated by a wrong-doer’s bias against a race, religious belief, disability, sexual identity, racial origin, sex, or gender identity (“Hate Crimes”, n.d.). Although the authorities are strictly against such violations, they still argue that hate itself is not a violation of the law and that they should keep protecting free expression of will as well as other individual freedoms. The Internet has made it possible for extremists to be completely intolerable of people different from them, so this issue has become a primary concern for policymakers and equal rights advocates. Online hate crimes might not only make a victim feel offended and vulnerable, but also lead to widespread community tension (Kaplan & Moss, 2003). While in the past, people had to gather outside to spread their bigoted messages on posters and banners, nowadays they can create websites and chatrooms where dangerous ideas emerge. Violators can send their hateful messages to each individual using the World Web, making millions of people vulnerable. But the message containing a hateful or biased comment is not itself a crime—citizens of the United States have a right to express all opinions protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution (American Library Association, 2017). People cross the line and become violators when their messages contain direct threats against other individuals. Sometimes they justify their opinions with good intentions, like patriotism and religion. As for now, it is practically impossible to identify wrongdoers online as they usually purposefully stay anonymous (e.g., by choosing fake names), but several cases of successful prosecutions can be useful for those policymakers who prioritize equality.
One such case took place more than twenty years ago. In September 1996, an anonymous student sent a threatening message to sixty students of Asian origin at the University of California, Irvine (Kaplan & Moss, 2003). His message was sent from an email that could not be traced, and contained crime accusations and a promise to find and kill all Asian people studying at the university. The violator was then discovered—it turned out to be Richard Machado, who was later sentenced to one year in prison (Kaplan & Moss, 2003). The wrongdoer received his punishment (although some might argue that one year is insufficient in this case), but one can only imagine the horror all students of Asian origin went through: the consequences of hate crimes are destructive, from isolation and vulnerability to despair, anxiety, self-hatred, and even suicidal thoughts. Most modern universities, schools, and public establishments prohibit hate speech and encourage their members to embrace diversity, yet some individuals still remain intolerant towards people representing minority groups. Another example of similar crimes is the tendency to hate people of Muslim origins in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, either offline or online. The authorities investigated hundreds of reported hate crimes, and some even led to murders (Kaplan & Moss, 2003). However, hate crimes are different from bias incidents. Despite being offensive, a bias incident cannot be defined as a hate crime or a code of conduct violation (“What is a Bias Incident or Hate Crime?”, n.d.). Examples of these incidents include the intentional or unintentional spread of literature propagating hate and offensive graffiti. Although they might lead to horrible consequences and are strongly discouraged, one should remember that a hate crime is always a bias incident, yet not all bias incidents may be identified as hate crimes.
Platform racism
One term that has recently become widely discussed is “platform racism,” an act that has dominated the development of the Internet and has significantly taken root in the minds of World Web users. This term has the following meanings: first, it induces platforms as means for initiating and spreading racist rhetoric both through instruments of users’ appropriations of their permissibility and through their algorithmic shaping of public-mindedness; and second, it suggests a system of control that can be disadvantageous for some communities, embodied in platforms’ dubious policies, their content moderation, and their usually inconsistent regulation enforcement (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017). Some platforms have unclear rules, which makes it hard to maintain an atmosphere of tolerance on platforms like YouTube, and Facebook. For example, Facebook allows humor and satire related to some controversial topics like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and it is unclear where the line is (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017). On the other hand, it is still unknown how such posts and messages with such content can be regulated so as not to violate people’s right to express their opinions online. In recent years, however, social media policymakers have been actively policing controversial content to protect their image (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017). Still, it is not sufficient to help all users, regardless of their race and other traits, use the platforms without the fear of being assaulted or ridiculed.
https://ikram.org.my/racial-prejudice/
Platform regulation is not a new issue: the book Regulating Platforms by Terry Flew is an informative guide that discovers the topic of libertarian internet, helping people better understand the current state of platform regulation and governance, as well as other related problems. The author makes the claim that the challenge pertaining to social media is to promote the best frameworks for balancing external regulation and supervision with the internal governance protocols of social media platforms (Flew, 2021). On January 1, 2021, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights initiated an online content moderation project. The relevant shareholders will analyze large amounts of data, including hateful messages against women and ethnic minorities (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2021). This project is not focused on finding the violators and bringing liability actions against them, but rather attempting to understand the quantities of the data to develop effective prevention policies. Keyword search will help those who will be searching and analyzing such comments make conclusions regarding how hate speech and hate crimes manifest themselves on a number of platforms. The results will be used to create online content moderation while not threatening free speech.
What are the consequences?
But the key question remains: what are the consequences of online hate speech and hate crimes for individuals? The answer requires an in-depth analysis of what affected individuals experience. Although one-time cases of hate speech may not be detrimental, those with a cumulative nature might significantly decrease an individual’s self-esteem and cause emotional damage and psychological trauma. Moreover, apart from the direct harm to the physical health of the victims, hate-induced actions are directly connected with substantial mental health harm (Hansen et al., 2018). Online hate speech has been connected to offensive real-world acts, hate crimes, and executions such as the 2019 attack in Christchurch, murders, and bombings; extremist recruitment; human trafficking; threats against civic leaders, including the 2019 rhetorical attack against an anti-Brexit politician (Castaño-Pulgarín et al., 2021). Hate speech has a significant impact on those who have previously refrained from having such beliefs. Chat rooms help convince potential violators that their actions are justified so they can decide on an act that can change someone’s life forever.
How do we solve it?
There are certain steps that can be taken to efficiently address hate crimes. First, it is critical to recognize and denounce such cases whenever they occur, and send informative and meaningful messages explaining the legal consequences of the crimes as well as the detrimental effects they have. Second, enacting laws that help the authorities punish the violators is also imperative. Furthermore, provide informative and up-to-date instructions, including resources and tools, to help combat hatred and embrace tolerance (Human Rights First, n.d.). Reporting hate crimes is also useful as there are many initiatives that are working on analyzing hateful comments by country to develop solutions to combat the spread of hate online. Speaking out is also very helpful — some people may have dangerous views because they do not have access to other ideas (Human Rights First, n.d.). Once those offended discuss the consequences of hate crimes on their well-being, it becomes easier to understand and reconsider previous views. Authorities should also pay more attention to the state of the education system, and help train educators to notice and address conflicts between students, and take measures accordingly (Human Rights First, n.d.). Finally, people who have been previously affected by hate speech and hate crimes should not be afraid to articulate their experiences and seek help. They might discuss their worries with other victims to discover some ways in which they can find comfort and relieve stress.
A contrasting opinion claims that hate speech should not be monitored as it violates the fundamental human right to freely express one’s will. Some push the idea of a politically correct language(many agree that it is a way to ban people from freely expressing their true thoughts, contradicting the very nature of free speech), which is a substitution of words with the newly created ones (e.g., poor — economically challenged, teenager —young adult). Hate speech definitely motivates hate crimes, but it is impossible not to mention the famous 1984 novel by George Orwell, where society has a limited vocabulary due to the strict autocratic leaders and propaganda. By erasing words from humans’ heads, the leaders managed to limit their imagination and permanently “erase” all thoughts of rebellion (McMillan, 2017). Of course, this example is only partially related to the topic of hate speech, yet it is currently unknown how to eliminate hate speech without harming free expression. It is also unclear who should decide on the limits of hate speech and how to ensure that those responsible for making decisions do not abuse their power. New speech regulations can motivate leaders to ban any attempt to criticize government action or spread hatred toward those who object to the authorities. It is also possible that the law will no longer be valid in this case. Although these ideas are just consequences of contemplation, society should understand all the risks associated with speech regulations.
Conclusion
To sum up, if hate speech and hate crimes remain unaddressed, it further motivates human rights abusers while negative stereotypes are disseminated throughout society, some groups become increasingly marginalized, discrimination is maintained, and division increases. Hate speech leads to hate crimes, horrific acts that threaten the safety of entire groups. Hate speech undermines individual dignity, leading to dismay and despair. The Internet is the place that was initially meant to become a tool that can help manage many of the modern problems, yet a significant part of it has become a threatening place where intolerant people can spread their hatred. As for now, it is still unclear what means can be adopted to improve the situation with online hate crimes, although some studies and initiatives are already taking place with the help of those willing to combat unequal power relations. Thus, there is a need for a universal solution that can monitor violations while not threatening the expression of free speech. Policymakers, along with community leaders, need to critically assess the available data to understand who should be responsible for drawing the line and where that line should be.
References
American Library Association. (2017). Hate Speech and Hate Crime. Retrieved 2 April 2022, from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
Castaño-Pulgarín, S., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L., & López, H. (2021). Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review. Aggression And Violent Behavior, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2021). Online content moderation – harassment, hate speech and (incitement to) violence against specific groups.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Retrieved 31 March 2022, from https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2021/online-content-moderation-harassment-hate-speech-and-incitement-violence-against.
Flew, T. (2021). Regulating Platforms (1st ed.). Polity Press.
Hansen, H., Riano, N., Meadows, T., & Mangurian, C. (2018). Alleviating the Mental Health Burden of Structural Discrimination and Hate Crimes: The Role of Psychiatrists. American Journal Of Psychiatry, 175(10), 929-933. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17080891
Hate Crimes. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 31 March 2022, from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes.
Human Rights First. Ten-Point Plan for Combating Hate Crimes. Retrieved 2 April 2022, from https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/Ten-Point-Plan-english.pdf?id=157
Kaplan, J., & Moss, M. (2003). Investigating Hate Crimes on the Internet, 5-15. Retrieved 31 March 2022, from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/investigating-hate-crimes-internet.
Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 930-946. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1293130
McMillan, A. (2017). Hate speech versus free speech. Retrieved 2 April 2022, from https://www.ibanet.org/Hate-speech-versus-free-speech
What is a Bias Incident or Hate Crime?. Goucher College. Retrieved 31 March 2022, from https://www.goucher.edu/experience/equity-and-identity/campus-climate-education-team/what-is-a-bias-incident-or-hate-crime.