{"title":"Towards a Definition of Hate Speech—With a Focus on Online Contexts","authors":"M. Hietanen, Johan Eddebo","doi":"10.1177/01968599221124309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As legislators and platforms tackle the challenge of suppressing hate speech online, questions about its definition remain unresolved. In this review we discuss three issues: What are the main challenges encountered when defining hate speech? What alternatives are there for the definition of hate speech? What is the relationship between the nature and scope of the definition and its operationability? By tracing both efforts to regulate and to define hate speech in legal, paralegal, and tech platform contexts, we arrive at four possible modes of definition: teleological, pure consequentialist, formal, and consensus or relativist definitions. We suggest the need for a definition where hate speech encompasses those speech acts that tend towards certain ethically proscribed ends, which are destructive in terms of their consequences, and express certain ideas that are transgressions of specific ethical norms. SAGE-Journals-Accessible-Video-Player 10.1177/01968599221124309.M1 sj-vid-1-jci-10.1177_01968599221124309","PeriodicalId":45677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Inquiry","volume":"47 1","pages":"440 - 458"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599221124309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
As legislators and platforms tackle the challenge of suppressing hate speech online, questions about its definition remain unresolved. In this review we discuss three issues: What are the main challenges encountered when defining hate speech? What alternatives are there for the definition of hate speech? What is the relationship between the nature and scope of the definition and its operationability? By tracing both efforts to regulate and to define hate speech in legal, paralegal, and tech platform contexts, we arrive at four possible modes of definition: teleological, pure consequentialist, formal, and consensus or relativist definitions. We suggest the need for a definition where hate speech encompasses those speech acts that tend towards certain ethically proscribed ends, which are destructive in terms of their consequences, and express certain ideas that are transgressions of specific ethical norms. SAGE-Journals-Accessible-Video-Player 10.1177/01968599221124309.M1 sj-vid-1-jci-10.1177_01968599221124309
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Communication Inquiry emphasizes interdisciplinary inquiry into communication and mass communication phenomena within cultural and historical perspectives. Such perspectives imply that an understanding of these phenomena cannot arise soley out of a narrowly focused analysis. Rather, the approaches emphasize philosophical, evaluative, empirical, legal, historical, and/or critical inquiry into relationships between mass communication and society across time and culture. The Journal of Communication Inquiry is a forum for such investigations.