Vernacular constructions of the relationship between freedom of speech and (potential) hate speech: The case of Finland

The blurred distinction between freedom of expression and hate speech in ever more polarised public debates across Europe and beyond has prompted research on hate speech, particularly focusing on right-wing populist politicians. Little is known, however, about how this distinction is construed by ordinary citizens. Deploying the concept of retrogressive mobilisation, this study examines how cases of (potential) political hate speech – one targeting racialised minorities, the other the LGBTQ+ community – are interpreted and negotiated by ordinary citizens through their comments on online news in Finland. Deploying a critical discursive psychological approach, we analyse the vernacular meanings that ordinary citizens attach to the notions of political hate speech, thereby highlighting the dynamic relationship between political and everyday discourse. We evidence three discursive constructions of the relationship between freedom of expression and (potential) hate speech. In these constructions, the same rhetorical resources, especially the liberal arguments of equality and freedom of expression, were deployed to service the opposite discursive functions – that is, for both ‘liberal’ and ‘illiberal’ ends – to condemn and justify discrimination against minoritised groups. Our study contributes to the social psychological understanding of contemporary hate speech and builds a bridge between social psychology and the more recent field of anti-gender research.