Does America love to hate?
The colossal American society, just like anything cosmic and gigantic, has always been divided. It was built on rage, on fury, on a fight for its own rights. The sound of the fury is getting louder each and every day, with more ways and reasons to divide a nation growing out of an opportunistic political climate, with new platforms to share the hate faster, to speak louder, to be heard by more people. Pride and prejudice - two pillars of hate, seem to be getting stronger and more stable with every slur, comment and threat. The discourse is, by the core values of the US, free (untamed?), colorful (chaotic?), strong (masculine?), and fiery (bridge-burning?).
United States have been viewed as a melting pot for longer than a century, and the pot is getting hotter. With globalization being the primary force in shaping the socio-cultural reality in the past few decades, and the expansion of the universal, omnipresent platform provided by the Internet, the whole world has become an enormous melting pot, with the U.S. being the most heated spot.
The Wild West of the Digital Era
In 2020 and early 2021, ADL has conducted research on online hate in America. They documented the damaging effect hateful content online has on communities, especially minorities and vulnerable groups. They have found, to nobody's surprise, that hate speech affects everyone.
K. Hazel Kwon
ASU professor Kyounghee Hazel Kwon talked to us about 4Chan and other hate-speech websites. She noted that the way that those websites use function are very similar to each other in Korea and America.
The spike in physical violence against Asian-Americans across the nation was whipped up in large part by bigotry and conspiracy theories that grew online, fanned by national leaders, including former President Trump’s incendiary rhetoric blaming China for the pandemic and referring to the virus as the “China plague” or “kung flu.” ADL researchers saw an 85 percent increase in negative sentiment on Twitter towards Asians following news that he contracted the coronavirus.
In October of 2020, ADL reported that in the months preceding the 2020 presidential election, Jewish members of Congress faced antisemitic attacks on Twitter.
Derogatory posts against African-Americans quadrupled on Facebook pages shortly after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and during the start of Black Lives Matter protests across the country.
There is one thing in common to all of these, and many other instances of worrying acts of hate speech - social media. The present and the future are both eras of the reign of social media discourse. Social media is and, without a doubt, considering the upward trajectory of its development, But, time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future, as T.S. Elliot noted. So, let’s go back in the past for a moment. To learn. For the future.
The spike in physical violence against Asian-Americans across the nation was whipped up in large part by bigotry and conspiracy theories that grew online, fanned by national leaders, including former President Trump’s incendiary rhetoric blaming China for the pandemic and referring to the virus as the “China plague” or “kung flu.” ADL researchers saw an 85 percent increase in negative sentiment on Twitter towards Asians following news that he contracted the coronavirus.
In October of 2020, ADL reported that in the months preceding the 2020 presidential election, Jewish members of Congress faced antisemitic attacks on Twitter.
Derogatory posts against African-Americans quadrupled on Facebook pages shortly after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and during the start of Black Lives Matter protests across the country.
There is one thing in common to all of these, and many other instances of worrying acts of hate speech - social media. The present and the future are both eras of the reign of social media discourse. Social media is and, without a doubt, considering the upward trajectory of its development, But, time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future, as T.S. Elliot noted. So, let’s go back in the past for a moment. To learn. For the future.
Valtazar Bogišić's civil code for Montenegro, The General Property Code, dating back to 1888, ends with a section of legal sayings that, for their linguistic and moral value, deserve to be taken as more than an explanation of the reason behind law. They, in a sense, serve as a crucial lesson on humanity and ethics - they are a testament of wisdom that should be nourished even today, even in the United States of America.
Article 1011. Violence is the biggest enemy of justice.
Vanessa Ruiz is the Deputy Vice President for Outreach within Educational Outreach and Student Services at Arizona State University, a successful journalist, with a history in assignment desk editing and associate producement. We talked to her about how hate speech online can, and more often than not, has consequences in the offline world. An example that shows how extreme and tragic events can occur because of poor hate speech regulation in the online world is the recent Robb Elementary School shooting.
Vanessa pointed out how journalists are being bullied online, more and more every year. The hate speech directed towards them is a big consequence of, as Vanessa puts it "the anti-media narrative. This leads to actual violence directed toward journalists, especially outside of the U.S. - in non-democratic systems.
Vanessa Ruiz
"Many respondents who were targeted or feared being targeted with hateful or harassing content reported being affected in terms of their economic, emotional, physical, and psychological well-being", says the ADL Online Hate and Harassment report from 2021.
"Many respondents who were targeted or feared being targeted with hateful or harassing content reported being affected in terms of their economic, emotional, physical, and psychological well-being", says the ADL Online Hate and Harassment report from 2021.
Vanessa continues by saying that we live in a time when there so many tools to dissiminate hate speech freely and incite violence, hatred, and division with that kind of speech. That damages the fabric of the American society and further divides the nation.
Vanessa Ruiz
Article 1014. The greatest injustice is when somebody gets some kind of advantage by virtue of their misdeed.
A very important observation of Mrs. Ruiz is that politicians across the world are using the American experience with hate speech and applying that methodology to divide their communities for personal gain and power, which is very much a threat to democracy.
The First Amendment “Issue”
Article 1014. The greatest injustice is when somebody gets some kind of advantage by virtue of their misdeed.
A very important observation of Mrs. Ruiz is that politicians across the world are using the American experience with hate speech and applying that methodology to divide their communities for personal gain and power, which is very much a threat to democracy.
The First Amendment “Issue”
Steve Kilar
Steve Kilar, the Communications Director for the Morrison Institute for Public Policy and Media Law professor at ASU, pointed out the eternal struggle for balance about The First Amendment: it seems absolute, but, it is only fair to regulate speech.
The General Property Code of Montenegro could give us insight into the way that the First Amendment should be interpreted: not as an absolute, which Steve agrees with.
Article 1026. When you interpret a law, always be mindful not only of the words, but the intention and the will of the legislators too.
The General Property Code of Montenegro could give us insight into the way that the First Amendment should be interpreted: not as an absolute, which Steve agrees with.
Article 1026. When you interpret a law, always be mindful not only of the words, but the intention and the will of the legislators too.
Article 998. Up to the time you are unlawfully harming someone, exercise whatever and as much as you desire.
The First Amendment shield can only be broken with the sharpest weapon - incitement of violence and other criminal activity. That means that hate speech is criminalized only in the case of a direct incitement of imminent criminal activity or when it contains specific threats of violence targeted against one person or a group. In any other cases, your voice is heard. You are free to speak, however and to whomever you like. This means that the flame that Madison’s clause from 1789: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments” is still burning. But at what price?
Article 1026. One shan’t overuse their own right.
ADL found that, no matter the ideology or party they dedicate themselves to, Americans feel the need for regulation of social media and know that the legal and institutional path is the one to choose.
Americans want law enforcement, agencies, platforms, decision and policy makers and jurists to do more to help combat hate speech on social media.
There is also a significant interest in greater transparency from social media platforms, higher than reported in the last survey. Americans want a clearer picture of the scope of online hate and harassment than that which social media platforms typically provide. They want higher degrees of accountability and transparency. Users also want to understand which communities are affected by online hate. (ADL, 2021)
It seems that Americans are ready for a change. They are willing to, in a way, sacrifice a small part of their most treasured possession - freedom, for the core values of the 21st century - democracy, equity, inclusion, tolerance and safety. The First Amendment is, without a doubt, unreplaceable in American jurisprudence, culture, and society. But, there must be some space for improvement. According to the data, most Americans seem to understand that The First Amendment was supposed to represent: a freedom to practice one’s own rights, and certainly not the freedom to hate and harm another. A single look at other western liberal democracies, led by the EU, implies that regulating hate speech does not harm democracy in any way.
The Balkan region is very specific - these countries are mostly newly established democracies which are trying to enforce EU regulations as to get into the European Union - including the ones on hate speech regulation and media law overall. These countries are very divided and the daily discourse is filled with conflict. This is why we included a short overview on the hate speech in online media in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro, and explained how regulation of hate speech helps the democratization processes in these emerging countries.
The First Amendment shield can only be broken with the sharpest weapon - incitement of violence and other criminal activity. That means that hate speech is criminalized only in the case of a direct incitement of imminent criminal activity or when it contains specific threats of violence targeted against one person or a group. In any other cases, your voice is heard. You are free to speak, however and to whomever you like. This means that the flame that Madison’s clause from 1789: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments” is still burning. But at what price?
Article 1026. One shan’t overuse their own right.
ADL found that, no matter the ideology or party they dedicate themselves to, Americans feel the need for regulation of social media and know that the legal and institutional path is the one to choose.
Americans want law enforcement, agencies, platforms, decision and policy makers and jurists to do more to help combat hate speech on social media.
There is also a significant interest in greater transparency from social media platforms, higher than reported in the last survey. Americans want a clearer picture of the scope of online hate and harassment than that which social media platforms typically provide. They want higher degrees of accountability and transparency. Users also want to understand which communities are affected by online hate. (ADL, 2021)
It seems that Americans are ready for a change. They are willing to, in a way, sacrifice a small part of their most treasured possession - freedom, for the core values of the 21st century - democracy, equity, inclusion, tolerance and safety. The First Amendment is, without a doubt, unreplaceable in American jurisprudence, culture, and society. But, there must be some space for improvement. According to the data, most Americans seem to understand that The First Amendment was supposed to represent: a freedom to practice one’s own rights, and certainly not the freedom to hate and harm another. A single look at other western liberal democracies, led by the EU, implies that regulating hate speech does not harm democracy in any way.
The Balkan region is very specific - these countries are mostly newly established democracies which are trying to enforce EU regulations as to get into the European Union - including the ones on hate speech regulation and media law overall. These countries are very divided and the daily discourse is filled with conflict. This is why we included a short overview on the hate speech in online media in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro, and explained how regulation of hate speech helps the democratization processes in these emerging countries.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina are the most active users of social networks. According to research by the Institute for Youth Development KULT (2021), young people most often use Instagram (80.4%), followed by YouTube (69.3%) and Facebook (67.3%), and they access these networks most often via a smartphone.
In a conversation with the Project Coordinator at the Youth Press Association in Bosnia and Herzegovina (ONAuBiH), Amina Vatres, we came to the following findings. The Regulatory Agency for Communications of BiH created a series of regulations as well as the code for the press and online media of BiH, where any form of discrimination and hate speech regarding national, religious, sexual and other orientations is treated harshly and is subject to criminal proceedings. In 2002, the Law on Communications of BiH was adopted (Official Gazette of BiH, no. 31/03), which regulates legal and other acts regarding transparent and democratic information of citizens of BiH. Further, the laws are divided by entities, where within the Republic of Srpska we have the Law on Freedom of Access to Information, while in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, except for the federal law, the same is defined within 10 cantons. The Law on Defamation Protection was adopted in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which provides legal certainty and the possibility of criminal prosecution of incorrect information and distribution of discriminatory news in the online and offline world.
When looking at the local level, for the first time there was a verdict in 2022 by the Municipal Court in Sarajevo, when the existence of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual characteristics was established. Since 2009, when sexual orientation and gender identity were introduced as prohibited grounds through the mentioned Law, it took almost 13 years until the first verdict.
In the context of information, the Communications Regulatory Agency has the role of creating and promoting rules in the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors, licensing operators in the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors, planning, managing and assigning frequency spectrum, applying technical and other quality standards, and establishing and maintaining the permit fee system.
During our research, we noticed that Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have an adequate legal response to online hate speech against anybody, but especially against persons from marginalized youth groups. Due to the unregulated legal framework, hate speech is essentially promoted through online media and citizens are encouraged to support discrimination against persons from marginalized groups. Also, through this form of promotion and speech, human rights are violated and thus the stability of marginalized groups is violated, and there are no legal measures to prevent this form of violence.
Kosovo
“A Kosovo where all – regardless of ethnic background, race or religion – are free to live, work and travel, without fear, hostility or danger and where there is tolerance, justice and peace for everyone.”
This document sets out the standards that Kosovo must reach, in full compliance with the UN Security Council.
As a young, multiethnic and diverse country, the Republic of Kosovo needs the existence of norms and policies to carry out the development of social integration in order to achieve a democratic social development.
In order for Kosovo to be a democratic state, it needs to have a tolerant society that promotes equality between everyone no matter their racial or gender affiliation, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, linguistic affiliation, cultural affiliation, social status, profession etc.
This is the ideal view most people want to see in online media for Kosovo. But it is far from the reality.
Kosovo has one of the youngest populations in Europe, with nearly 50% of the population under 25 years of age and 19% between 15-24 years-old. Based on the #Digital2021 report, conducted by DataReportal, there were 1.10 million social media users in Kosovo in 2021. Looking at these statistics, we can safely say that more than half of the population uses social media and consumes news and media on a daily basis. Whereas by 2022 this number decreased to 1.04 million social media users.
In Kosovo, the development of the media has followed a similar trajectory to the development of the Kosovo society as a whole. As a result, certain problems and challenges that the society has faced during the period of transition can be clearly seen reflected in the media landscape.
Rules and regulations
The Civil Code - There is a wide range of personal characteristics that can be subject to hate speech, such as: race, national and ethnic origin, religion, language, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social status, etc. In Kosovo, for example the Law on Protection from Discrimination in Article 1 paragraph 1 prohibits discrimination based on “nationality, or in relation to any community, social origin, race, ethnicity, color, birth, origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, citizenship, religion and religious belief, political affiliation, political or other opinion, social or personal status, age, family or marital status, pregnancy, maternity, wealth, health status, disability, genetic inheritance or any other grounds.”
Though the draft law has 1,630 articles that would regulate various aspects of the private and public life in Kosovo, it was article 1,138, paragraph 2 that was the bone of contention, and practically the only portion under discussion. The paragraph states: “Registered civil unions between persons of the same sex are allowed. Conditions and procedures are regulated by a special law.”
Hate speech comments tend to come in the form of comments under posts, in every social media, you can read them especially when public figures support or don't support the specific marginalized group. And when we mention the LGBTIQ+ community, Duda Balje, the head of the legislative committee responsible for human rights and gender equality. Her post, where she declared she is against the new code, and the comments under her post were aggressively homophobic.
In 2021, Kosovo’s minister of internal affairs body shamed and bullied the current president, Vjosa Osmani, calling her “so big that she needs a space as big as the presidency [of the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) and] that [the leadership] should be removed [in order] for her to come [back and join the party]." Misogynistic remarks made by politicians, the sole public figures that the citizens of Kosovo are supposed to rely on are actually the ones spreading hateful speech in online media. The political sphere in Kosovo is a place where patriarchal norms against women still persevere.
Civil Society
There are several non-profit organizations in Kosovo that combat hate speech online and promote democratic and transatlantic perspectives. They are working towards a more tolerant society, one where all the abovementioned people will live a decent life in the country.
YIHR Kosovo (Youth Initiative for Human Rights), is one of the CSOs in Kosovo which contributes to the changes that need to happen in our society and system.
CEL Center for Equality and Liberty; their work is focused on supporting the LGBTIQ+ community in Kosovo, as they are a marginalized group which needs all the extra help they can get.
In this article published on their website, they shared an incredible story of an Ashkali trans woman, living in Kosovo, they helped her find a temporary shelter. Although her story is hard to digest, it is very important to be aware of the issues trans women face in Kosovo. This shows a lot about our prejudice and close mindedness as a society, to accept people who are different, in this case the LGBTIQ+ community.
CEL got the help and support of the UN Peacebuilding operations, and their main focus and dedication is to make the world a safer and fairer place to live in.
As we set rules and regulations about the way we should behave in online media, we come to learn that regulating hate speech in the social media sphere is very difficult as the policies that exist are not implemented, nor are they respected. This in turn, makes marginalized groups even more vulnerable. One of our biggest challenges regarding LGBTIQ+ rights in Kosovo is the homophobic mentality. Living in a typical heteronormative patriarchal society, people in Kosovo find it hard to accept persons who are part of this community, and not only can they get offensive online, this can also lead to real life violence.
Montenegro
As a small country that gained its independence just 16 years ago, it would be expected that Montenegro would not have good regulation of online media, especially on the subject of hate speech. However, that is not the case, especially because of its strategic goals related to its EU accession process, which led to the implementation of most EU regulations and directives, including the ones on media regulation and hate speech. The other important factors are Montenegro’s striving for a better, more democratic society and the big role of the civil society and international non-profit organizations and development programmes.
Paving the road to the EU has been a long and complicated process, but one of outmost importance for the democratization of Montenegrin society. It all begins, just like in the U.S. - with the Constitution, which in Montenegro guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Those rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the most important political and legal act, are more specified in the Media Law of Montenegro, which includes 4 laws, including one on electronic media. What additionally determines the limits of freedom of expression (under certain conditions, of course), are the international standards, mostly the ones of EU, which have supremacy over national law.
Montenegro is set out to improve the institutional and normative framework of the media microcosm while protecting the freedom of expression in the spirit of international standards. This means that the media law is interpreted correspondingly to the European Convention on Human Rights and the precedent law practice of The European Court of Human Rights, and that the media industry is heavily regulated and self-regulated.
The Law on the Freedom of Discrimination defines hate speech as any form of expresssing of ideas, claims, information and opinions that spreads, incites, encourages or justifies discrimination, hatred or violence against an individual or a group of individuals because of their personal trait, xenophobia, racial hatred, antisemitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed in the form of nationalism, discrimination of, and animosity towards minorities.
Many legal documents in Montenegro strictly prohibit broadcasting any kind of hate speech. For example, The Law on Electronic Media of Montenegro prohibits the incitement of hate and discrimination on any basis, and prescribes a financial penalty from 500 to 6000 euros for any legal person which broadcasts content that supports violence. Media Law of Montenegro forbids publishing this kind of content in general, and online media are obliged to remove any kind of comment which is obviously illegal according to the law, in the span of 60 minutes since discovering illegal content. However, this does not apply to their social media accounts.
The journalists in Montenegro are obliged by their Code of ethics to create internal rules of their online media as to stop illegal activity of their readers and educate them about the rules. They are obliged to moderate the comments according to the rules. Some media organizations, mostly private ones, employed their own ombudsmans who are supposed to represent the conscience of both the journalists and the readers. The question of their independence from the management is controversial.
The reality is that the editorial content is mostly free of hate speech, but the comments of the audience are overflowing with hate which is hard to regulate, even with the strong regulations on paper. There is too much comments and too little workers. There is, just like in the whole society, too many people who hate, and just a few of them who are ready to fight hate. One thing that is very much needed in Montenegro is a platform to report hate speech to, which would serve as an arbitrator between the people who report cases and organizations who work on them - state institutions, or, even better, media self-regulation agencies.
The Media Council for Self-Regulation is open for all media who want to develop and improve journalism in Montenegro. This body is in charge of monitoring professional and ethics standards in journalism in Montenegro. Their Complaints and Monitoring Board plays a crucial part after the occurrence of hate speech. After a complaint, their team of experts determines if the Code of Ethics was violated, and if it was, the public is notified, and the media that violated the Code is obliged to publish the Board’s decision, which holds media accountable and engages the public in the discourse on media ethics and responsible media. An even more important role of this Board is that they solve disputes between media organizations and a legal or a natural person. If this Board did not exist, the cases would be taken to court. Montenegro is known for its dysfunctional judicature, and the Board saves the cases from being lost in the system, so to say.
It seems that Montenegro is doing great on the subject of regulating hate speech, and even with the legal follow-up after it happens. However, as one might notice, these are mostly post-festum solutions. What Montenegro needs as much as the U.S. is to minimize the number of cases that need to be legally treated - to actually cut down on the amount of hate speech in the media - from its root. It seems that the tool to be used for this must be a magic wand, but it's not that simple, but it's not that impossible either. What we need is education. Is it not better to use the freedom of expression for expressing tolerance, intellectual and critical thought, than to use it to propagate hate (and disinformation)? To get to that point, we must educate the people first. And people means everyone, not just the elite. Education that changes society does not (necessarily) mean a formal, expensive education. It means a change of perspective, exposure to diversity, a lesson or two on responsibility and accountability, and a whole bunch of work on emotional intelligence and empathy. In the end, its a cultural and anthropological problem, after all. Not a legal one. Hate speech influences humans in ways that transcends jurisprudence. Law is the art of the good and the equitable, the Latin jurist Celsius reminds us, still.
The First Amendment shall never be the only reference point for citizens of the United States. The primary goal should be, as Celsius said, to be a good citizen who strives for equity and inclusion. When that goal is accomplished, law can be practiced the way that it was intended to. The civil sector, alongside the media community and institutions of interest must all work together in minimizing hate speech. We are all responsible for hate speech, not just the one who directs it to someone. Everyone, from top to bottom, from left to right.