Hate Speech Regulation Research Articles

The Impact of Hate Speech Regulations on Freedom of Expression an Indonesian Legal Perspective

This paper explores the impact of hate speech regulation on freedom of expression in Indonesia from a juridical perspective. The study focuses on the legal framework, including the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), both of which are central to the regulation of hate speech. Through an analysis of key statutes, court rulings, and case studies, this paper highlights the tension between protecting public order and safeguarding free speech. The findings reveal that vague legal definitions and broad enforcement of hate speech laws have led to selective prosecution, often targeting political dissent and criticism. These issues raise concerns about the erosion of democratic rights and the potential misuse of hate speech laws for political purposes. Recommendations are provided to clarify legal definitions, ensure proportionality in enforcement, and prevent the misuse of these laws in a manner that balances the protection of social harmony with the preservation of freedom of expression.

Ujaran Kebencian dan Berita Bohong Berdasarkan Perspektif Sosiologi Hukum Ditinjau dari Undang - Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyse the regulation of hate speech from a sociological perspective with a focus on Law Number 1 of 2024 which is the second amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions. This research uses the normative juridical method. The results show that fake news that is deliberately spread to damage someone's reputation is regulated in Article 28 paragraph 1 of the ITE Law which prohibits the dissemination of electronic information that is untrue or misleading and has an impact on material losses for consumers in electronic transactions. On the other hand, hate speech is regulated in Article 28 paragraph 2 which prohibits the dissemination of electronic information that incites or influences others to cause hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, nationality, religion or gender. This includes insults, defamation, provocation and slander, all of which aim to create hostility among the public.

Should we hate hate speech regulation? The argument from viewpoint discrimination

Abstract According to philosophers like James Weinstein, our democratic values give us a compelling reason to tolerate hate speech. In fact, they argue that even if hate speech causes significant harms, our democratic values nonetheless sometimes call for a hands-off approach. In particular, they evoke the democratic value of citizens being free to criticize and voice dissent towards the laws that bind them. This paper seeks to establish two key points. First, that upon closer examination, the kind of arguments that Weinstein presents against hate speech regulation is less than convincing. Secondly, that by building on Weinstein's discussion of the concept of viewpoint discrimination, we can construct a more convincing objection to hate speech regulation. That said, this more convincing objection falls short of calling for the abolition of all hate speech regulation, instead highlighting the need for transparency and consistency in the way governments regulate harmful speech.

Does algorithmic content moderation promote democratic discourse? Radical democratic critique of toxic language AI

ABSTRACT Algorithmic content moderation is becoming a common practice employed by many social media platforms to regulate ‘toxic’ language and to promote democratic public conversations. This paper provides a normative critique of politically liberal assumption of civility embedded in algorithmic moderation, illustrated by Google’s Perspective API. From a radical democratic standpoint, this paper normatively and empirically distinguishes between incivility and intolerance because they have different implications for democratic discourse. The paper recognises the potential political, expressive, and symbolic values of incivility, especially for the socially marginalised. We, therefore, argue against regulation of incivility using AI. There are, however, good reasons to regulate hate speech but it is incumbent upon the users of AI moderation to show that this can be done reliably. The paper emphasises the importance of detecting diverse forms of hate speech that convey intolerant and exclusionary ideas without using explicitly hateful or extremely emotional wording. The paper then empirically evaluates the performance of the current algorithmic moderation to see whether it can discern incivility and intolerance and whether it can detect diverse forms of intolerance. Empirical findings reveal that the current algorithmic moderation does not promote democratic discourse, but rather deters it by silencing the uncivil but pro-democratic voices of the marginalised as well as by failing to detect intolerant messages whose meanings are embedded in nuances and rhetoric. New algorithmic moderation should focus on the reliable and transparent identification of hate speech and be in line with the feminist, anti-racist, and critical theories of democratic discourse.

Regulating campus speech: Student ideology and support for free speech in a conservative university system

ABSTRACT What are undergraduate students’ preferences and knowledge regarding free speech on college campuses? Using an original survey of college students in a conservative Upper-Midwestern state, we gather responses across six key areas of speech controversy. Student ideology predictably and significantly divides student support for speech regulation. Compared to liberals, conservative students are more supportive of free expression in the context of potential bias incidents, such as hate speech. Meanwhile, liberal students are more supportive where traditional values are potentially challenged, such as unpatriotic speech. We further find that what students believe about the legal ability to punish or prevent speech on campus mostly aligns with their preferences. However, regardless of ideology, our respondents also show broad support for hate speech regulation, and most believe incorrectly that public institutions are legally empowered to punish or prevent it. The results of this analysis are informative for the growing debate about campus life involving students, faculty, administrators, and spectators alike.

Politicization of Hate and Weaponization of Twitter/X in a Polarized Digital Space in Nigeria

Hate speech on social media platforms during electioneering campaign has been institutionalized. The campaign hate-filled rhetoric continues unabated. Some have attributed this phenomenon to access to social media. This study therefore investigates the prevalence of hate speech on Twitter in Nigeria. Twitter API was used to generate data that was later content analyzed. Anchored on the technological determinism theory, the study revealed political periods saw the prevalence of hate speech and political, ethnic, religion and regional-based hate speech are the dominant themes on hate discourse on Twitter. Some regions in Nigeria weaponized Twitter to denigrate others while others used it to promote their agitation but in the process also resort to hate speech. The study argued that Twitter is just a technology in the hand of hate-filled people who used it to promote their bigotry and bile. This study recommends the development of a legal framework for the regulation of hate speech on social media. Also, the utterance of politicians must be guarded, and the electoral acts must be fully implemented.

Hate Speech and the Deaf Ears of the Kenyan Law: An In-Depth Analysis of Regulation and Enforcement

In this paper, I delve into the landscape of hate speech regulation in Kenya, specifically focusing on the potential collaboration between the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights. By examining the existing legal frameworks, organisational structures, and the impact of joint oversight on combating hate speech, I aim to provide a thorough analysis of empowering the NCIC in this realm. Through exploring the historical context of the NCIC, evaluating its readiness for expanded responsibilities, and gauging public perceptions of collaboration, I seek to shed light on the feasibility and implications of such a partnership. Drawing insights from South Africa, the United Nations Hate Speech Strategic Plan, and advocating for a human rights approach to countering online ethnic hate speech, this paper endeavours to enhance accountability in the criminalization of hate speech in Kenya.

EQUALITY THROUGH EXCLUSION? TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DEMOCRATIC EXCLUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL PUBLIC VENUES

In order to hinder attacks on democratic norms and processes in digital public venues, designing strategies of exclusion is a pressing concern. Nevertheless, we lack systematic studies of how digital public venues should be governed to protect – rather than undermine – democratic values through exclusion. The purpose of this contribution is to offer a systematic theorization of the concept of democratic exclusion in the context of digital public venues. I will in particular draw on two strands of literature within democratic theory which have contributed greatly to the normative theorization of democratic exclusion, but have done so in relation to other types of political settings: the works within feminist political theory on exclusion of dominant groups within parliaments (e.g. Dovi 2009; Murray 2014) and the literature on hate speech regulation and democratic self-defence against (primarily) antidemocratic parties (e.g. Müller 2016; Invernizzi Accetti and Zuckerman 2017; Malkopoulou and Kirshner 2019). First, I will analyze if and how these previous contributions can be applied to the specific context of digital public venues, where special conditions of access and visibility apply. I will then assess to what extent the platforms’ existing governing strategies and policies concerning the exclusion of problematic content or accounts are compatible with the relevant exclusion principles formulated in these works. Building on this analysis, in its final parts the study will move on to carve out more specific suggestions for how exclusion on digital venues should be governed, and what principles should guide this governance.

Exploring the Social and Cultural Implications of Hate Speech on Facebook in Malaysia

The study provides insights into the prevalence of hate speech on Facebook among Malaysian users and highlights the need for greater efforts to counteract hate speech in Malaysia. Effective policies and interventions could be developed to address this issue based on the findings. This study examines hate speech trends among Facebook users in Malaysia and their attitudes towards regulating such speech. The study employs a four-part survey questionnaire: Part A covers demographics (gender, age, education); Part B examines social media engagement (platform choice, Facebook usage); Part C explores Facebook hate speech (locations, types, frequency); and Part D investigates responses (experiences, emotions, actions, perspectives). It was conducted with 225 respondents. The study found that race-related content is not the most commonly observed form of hate speech on Facebook in Malaysia; instead, users commonly encounter other types of hate speech. Additionally, users' level of awareness regarding hate speech is influenced by their level of activity on the platform. Notably, the duration of time spent on Facebook is not correlated with the frequency of exposure to hate speech. Experiences of being victimized by hate speech do not necessarily lead to support for regulating hate speech on Facebook. These findings provide valuable insights into the prevalence of hate speech on Facebook among Malaysian users and underscore the need for greater efforts to counteract hate speech in Malaysia. The study suggests the importance of developing effective policies and interventions to address this issue based on the findings.

SEM analysis of agreement with regulating online hate speech: influences of victimization, social harm assessment, and regulatory effectiveness assessment.

In an era where digital interactions are increasingly prevalent, the challenge of effectively regulating online hate speech has emerged as a crucial societal concern. Balancing the regulation of such speech with the preservation of online freedom of expression is a delicate task, requiring broad consensus among internet users. This study delves into the various factors shaping public attitudes towards the regulation of online hate speech in South Korea. An online survey of 1,000 Internet users provided the data for a structural equation model. Our findings reveal that experiences of victimization by hate speech, online activity such as content uploading, assessment of social harm caused by online hate speech, and assessment on the effectiveness of regulatory measures all play significant roles in garnering support for regulation. Notably, online activity correlates strongly with increased encounters with hate speech. This, in turn, leads to a more profound understanding of its social harm and, consequently, a heightened inclination to support regulatory measures. These insights underscore the growing urgency to address online hate speech, especially as online activity continue to intensify. This study contributes to the discourse on online hate speech regulation by highlighting the complex interplay of personal experience, perceived harm, and efficacy of regulation in shaping public consensus.

Online gender-based hate speech in South Korea

ABSTRACT This article examines online gender-based hate speech in South Korea. The article first discusses how the phenomenon has evolved and what its main characteristics are. It also examines new developments in the phenomenon in recent years and provides a brief overview of Korean legislation relevant to the regulation of online gender-based hate speech. Against this backdrop, the article then discusses two notable and distinctive trends that have emerged with the rise of backlashes against feminism in Korea. The two trends are 1) a focus on misandry rather than misogyny, and 2) a denunciation of regulatory efforts as an unjust restriction on freedom. The article concludes that it is time to redefine online gender-based hate speech in Korea, for otherwise discussions on how to regulate online gender-based hate speech will be directionless and futile.

Countering online hate speech: How does human rights due diligence impact terms of service?

The Internet is a global forum largely governed by private actors driven by profit concerns, often disregarding the human rights of historically marginalised communities. Increased attention is being paid to the corporate human rights due diligence (HRDD) responsibilities applicable to online platforms countering illegal online content, such as hate speech. At the European Union (EU) level, cross-sector initiatives regulate the rights of marginalised groups and establish HRDD responsibilities for online platforms to expeditiously identify, prevent, mitigate, remedy and remove online hate speech. These initiatives include the Digital Services Act, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the proposed Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act and the Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. Nevertheless, the HRDD framework applicable to online hate speech has focused mostly on the platforms’ responsibilities throughout the course of their operations - guidance regarding HRDD requirements concerning the regulation of hate speech in the platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS) is missing. This paper employs a conceptualisation of criminal hate speech as explained in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16, Paragraph 11, to develop specific HRDD responsibilities. We argue that online platforms should, as part of emerging preventive HRDD responsibilities within Europe, respect the rights of historically oppressed communities by aligning their ToS with the conceptualisation of criminal hate speech in European human rights standards.

Legislating to Control Online Hate Speech: A Corpus-Assisted Semantic Analysis of French Parliamentary Debates

This corpus analysis of linguistic and semantic features in French parliamentary debates concerning online hate speech regulation, highlights tensions between state powers and private rights. Two key themes are identified: first, the problem of definition: how such online content is defined in the debates, and second, the problem of regulation: how the debates negotiate the supra-jurisdictional and individual jurisdiction issues involved, in regulating both the global online content and the responsibilities of the owners of the platforms who manage the content. For this analysis, the authors created a corpus of French National Assembly Examination Committee discussions and public sessions between July 2019 to January 2020 discussing the Loi Avia (Avia Law). The corpus was analysed using quali-quantitative methods. Overall, the study combines a top-down (global) and a bottom-up (local) analysis of the data, applying corpus semantic approaches (Lecolle et al. in Langages 210(2):35–54, 2018; Rastier in The Routledge handbook of semantics, Routledge, pp 507–522, 2015) to contextualize the analysis of the meta-discourse (Hyland in Meta-discourse: exploring interaction in writing, 1st ed. Bloomsbury Academic, Bloomsbury Collections, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350063617). The analysis highlights the linguistic features revealing the power dynamics inherent within the discourse and counter-discourse of the dominant and opposition political parties respectively.

UJARAN KEBENCIAN DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG PEMILU DAN TINJAUAN SIYASAH DUSTURIYAH

The main problem in this thesis is the regulation of hate speech in Law Number 7 of 2017, because when the agenda for a democratic party or also known as elections is approaching, the behavior of hate speech has greatly increased. Certain groups of candidates may clash with other supporting groups, so that Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, "everyone has the right to freedom of association, assembly and expression of opinions", is very vulnerable to dealing with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The purpose of this study is to find out more about the regulation of hate speech in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning general elections and siyasa dusturiyyah reviews. To answer the object of the study, the authors used library research using a normative juridical approach with statutory and conceptual approaches. In this case, it includes primary legal materials, namely from laws and regulations, especially Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections and secondary legal materials from legal and Islamic books and journals. In the research that the authors conducted, it can be concluded that, until now, hate speech in elections in Indonesia has not been clearly interpreted, even in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Elections) it is not explained in detail regarding how to define, victims, perpetrators, sanctions imposed as well as benchmarks or limitations that can be categorized as hate speech in elections. Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections in fiqh siyasa dusturiyyah, the source of its formation is siyasah wad'iyah because it is produced by mere human thought products which in the drafting process do not pay attention to norms and ethics. Hate speech in Islam is a prohibited act because it can cause harm, especially to the soul, and in it has an element of humiliation, namely lowering one's self-esteem/soul, which should be maintained or guarded for every human being from any group as per the concept of the formulation of the basis of the state (fiqh siyasa dusturiyyah). and the principle is to prioritize guarantees of human rights and realize justice.

Contextualizing Mill’s Idea on Freedom of Expression in The Indonesian Law on Prohibition of Hate Speech

This paper examines John Stuart Mill’s thoughts on freedom of expression as a part of human rights, especially to the extent it is limited by the prohibition of hate speech. Although this right is justified for philosophical, political, and individual reasons, it will be contextualized from Indonesia’s regulations perspectives. Tracing the background to the emergence of freedom of expression and the emergence of hate speech from developed countries such as Europe and America, the background for regulating hate speech is different from that of Indonesia, where hate speech is still regulated and prohibited in various regulations and subject to criminal sanctions. Freedom of expression initiated by John Stuart Mill is not absolute freedom as opinions lose their immunity when the opinions expressed become positive incentives for harmful actions.

Public preferences for international law compliance: Respecting legal obligations or conforming to common practices?

Despite significant debate about the ability of international law to constrain state behavior, recent research points to domestic mechanisms that deter non-compliance, most notably public disapproval of governments that violate treaty agreements. However, existing studies have not explicitly differentiated two distinct, theoretically important motivations that underlie this disapproval: respect for legal obligations versus the desire to follow common global practices. We design an innovative survey experiment in Japan that manipulates information about these two potential channels directly. We examine attitudes towards four controversial practices that fall afoul of international law—same-surname marriage, whaling, hate speech regulation, and capital punishment—and find that the legal obligation cue has a stronger effect on respondent attitudes than the common practices cue. We also show subgroup differences based on partisanship and identification with global civil society. These results demonstrate that the legal nature of international law is crucial to domestic compliance pull.

Hate Speech and Atrocity Prevention in Asia: Patterns, Trends and Strategies

Abstract This article introduces the conceptual and analytical framework for this special issue on hate speech and atrocity prevention in Asia. It defines hate speech and incitement, and explains the process and context through which hate speech and incitement operates as a risk factor for atrocities. It also provides an explanation of the international legal framework regulating hate speech and incitement that informs the approach of the articles in this issue.

A survey inquiry into behavioral foundations of hate speech regulations: evidence from Japan

AbstractThis paper highlights the concept of dignity as the cornerstone that justifies hate speech regulations in democratic societies. In political theory and constitutional law, the primacy of dignity as the moral and legislative justification for regulating hate speech has already been addressed by dignitarianism, especially in the course of debate with free speech advocates. We aim to augment this important claim in the normative literature with empirical data. Specifically, based on our survey conducted in Japan, where its first national anti-hate speech law had only recently been enacted and ordinary citizens were thus less predisposed of the debate, we show that citizens' concerns about the dignity of a targeted victim lead them to support regulations. Our analysis further clarifies the possible mechanisms of the dignitarian rationale, revealing not only the people's public-centered expectation regarding the societal consequences of hate speech, which dignitarians emphasized, but also the importance of more individual-based judgments regarding morality and justice, in shaping their regulatory attitudes.

현행법상 혐오표현에 대한 사법적 대응

Despite the seriousness of hate speech, which is pervasive in our culture, specific administrative and legislative measures to regulate hate speech have not yet been adopted, and there is no national agreement in our nation. Fortunately, a variety of sectors, including academics, politics, the media, and civic organizations, have started to raise awareness of the problem of hate speech along with issues relating to freedom of expression, and societal efforts to address problems brought on by hate speech have been ongoing. However, there are still no organized, effective measures in place, and the process of enacting the necessary laws and regulations is moving slowly. Despite the fact that Korean society has actively participated in regulatory discourses on hate speech issues that have recently gained widespread attention. If Korean courts continue to take a non-interventionist stance toward hate speech due to a lack of legal grounds, it may appear that they tolerate it unchallenged. As a response, the Korean courts should accumulate judgments that alarm the harmfulness of hate speech within the existing legal system until a legislative basis is established. This will help to protect minority rights and interests from harm that hate speech causes to minority groups' rights and interests, such as discrimination and exclusion. Currently, instances involving hate speech are handled by Korean courts in fragmented approaches, including by criminalizing insult (or defamation) crimes, awarding damages for unlawful acts under civil law, examining the validity of administrative dispositions, etc. This study intends to offer the Korean courts judicial criteria that might be used in cases involving hate speech.

“Dignity Embodies Duty”: Islamic Perspective on Combating “Hate Speech”

Abstract Hate speech (‘al-jahr bi’-sūʾ min al-qawl in the Qur’anic description) continues to be the subject of contentious debate. Arguably, the notion of “unregulated speech” in the liberal discourse encourages hate speech on the pretext of “defending” the right to freedom of speech. Islam recognises human dignity as the underlying basis of all human rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech. Here arise two core questions. First, is freedom of speech and expression an absolute right or has Islam imposed certain conditions on the human agency while this right is exercised? Second, what do these conditions concerning freedom of speech imply about the regulation of hate speech? I approach these questions by beginning with the introduction of karamah principle followed by an overview of theoretical conceptualisations of free speech in the Western context. Finally, the Islamic position on the subject is brought forth through the conceptual analysis of relevant Islamic texts. The article draws three conclusions. First, human dignity is the intrinsic condition that surpasses all rights and freedoms. Second, the idea of “unregulated speech” is controversial and has been a reason for harming human dignity and making the public discourse inimical to social order. Third, there should be a legal, moral and rational reconciliation between exercising ‘speech limitations’ and ‘free speech’ to ensure sustainable peace and social cohesion.