There is a growing body of literature that recognises the importance of responsibility for ceasing the spread of hate speech and how to ease it. The Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech as a fundamental right of resonance, and citizens can freely express their beliefs, views, attitudes, thoughts and opinions. With the birth and development of the Internet, the field and space for citizens to express their opinions have become more extensive, and people can express their ideas anytime, anywhere. As a globalised and decentralised computer network, the Internet has changed the traditional communication medium. The transnational and borderless nature of the Internet also makes it easier to spread knowledge, ideas and information. But concurrent, the anonymity, timeliness, and global nature of the Internet also make it an ideal platform for preaching hatred (Banks, 2010).
A recent study supported by UNESCO reviewed the growing problem of online hate speech with the birth of the Internet. From a legal and social point of view, Enforcement and surveillance are even more difficult by the speed and reach of the Internet, which makes it difficult for governments to enforce national legislation against people on social platforms, especially when hate speech is being made to people who are not in the same country ((Gagliardone et al., 2015)). Anonymous speech on the Internet makes the boundaries of ethics and morality highly blurred. According to existing research, users will express their originally suppressed feelings and thoughts in the case of anonymity. Therefore, in the case of anonymity, people tend to be more Aggressiveness ((Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997; Suler, 2004)). Social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have influenced how extremist messages it spread. One of the major challenges for democratic policymakers is to address Internet-fueled extremism while respecting individual and civil rights (Guiora & Park, 2017). The researcher points out that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are not doing enough to solve the problem of user-reported hate speech, and they could do more. Specifically, the platforms can use these algorithms to judge online hate speech by accessing and analyzing large amounts of relevant data combined with real-life events(Gagliardone et al., 2015).
Although many studies have found that anonymous comments can promote rude online comments, the research also pointed out the importance of anonymous comments, such as avoiding people’s excessive focus on the source of the information and ignoring the essence of the speech or vulnerable groups can express their opinions through anonymous speech, avoid social exclusion and preconceived accusations(Scott, 2004).
What is hate speech
Before discussing who is responsible for ceasing the spread of this content and how to ease hate speech, it’s important to define what hate speech is.
Hate speech is a frequently discussed area of social science research, including racism, sexism, bullying, and other problematic content(Delgado, 2018). Howard’s definition of hate speech is. Firstly, targeting a specific or easily identifiable individual or group.
Secondly, by implicitly or explicitly attributing labels that are widely considered unpopular and negative to a person or group. And finally, an individual or group. Crowds are considered undesirable beings or hostile objects(Howard, 2019).
Impact of hate speech
Hate speech not only promotes prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, hatred and hostile attitudes, but can also cause psychological trauma to victims of online hate speech, such as low self-esteem, sleep disturbance, increased anxiety, and fear and insecurity(SELMA Partners, 2019). Jeremy Waldron believes that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities(Waldron, 2012). In 2012, 15-year-old Amanda Todd hanged herself at her home, uploading her experiences of harassment and sexual extortion to YouTube before her death(“Amanda Todd,” 2022). Amanda’s suicide has received international media attention and coverage, bringing attention to the harm done to people by online hate speech. In the same year, Canadian MP Dany. Morin proposed a study into the scope of bullying in response to Amanda’s suicide and more funding and support for anti-bullying groups.
Regulatory Responsibilities
In May 2016, the European Commission announced a partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft to control illegal hate speech online, and the internet giants collectively signed a code of conduct pledging to “block and delete relevant reports within 24 hours of being reported. Hate speech”(Aswad, 2016). There are several reasons why hate speech is still happening on the internet despite both tech companies and governments saying they want to crack down on hate speech. First of all, the current threshold for information dissemination has been greatly lowered. Even if an account is reported and banned, people can use a new email address to create a new account for free. In addition, the cost of money and time for defending the rights of online hate speech is too high, causing victims to suffer. It is difficult to obtain legal help. What’s more, the internet covers the whole world, and each country has different legal provisions and extradition provisions, which also leads to difficulties in supervision and law enforcement. Furthermore, there is no authoritative definition of hate speech at present, which results in the lack of a unified information evaluation standard to effectively identify illegal information when different countries, different companies, and different institutions carry out the review. It is difficult to grasp the proportions, and the governance measures are full of uncertainty and lack of predictability, which directly affects the effect of punishment. Additionally, the conflict between hate speech and freedom of expression remains unresolved. Freedom of speech has become a deeply ingrained social culture, which makes it easy for public opinion orientation to encounter diverse obstacles and hinder the advancement of governance. Finally, the game between the public nature of monitoring hates speech and the marketisation of the Internet. Western developed countries generally prefer to supervise the network through market regulation and industry self-discipline, but the commercial operation of the internet is highly dependent on the market. From the perspective of regulating management, it objectively leads to the relatively fragile self-discipline behaviour of the industry.
To solve this problem. Initially, countries must formulate unified standards and laws to ensure the standardised operation of the internet. Furthermore, studies have shown that people who leave messages anonymously are more aggressive and more prone to extreme, impulsive negative comments(Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997; Rowe, 2015; Suler, 2004). Using real-name registration can reduce people’s hate speech, and when the identity of the speaker can be identified, the chance of negative speech will be reduced. Finally, strengthen the review mechanism for comments, and handle reported hate speech promptly to avoid further harm to victims.
Conclusion
The anonymity and fluidity of the internet provide make harassment and the expression of hatred a breeze in settings beyond the realm of traditional law enforcement. To prevent the spread of hate speech on the Internet, the government, social platforms and individual users all have responsibilities and need to make changes. The government needs to introduce more stringent policies to prevent the spread of hate speech, and social platforms need to strengthen the review mechanism of messages to reduce hate speech. While speaking, avoid actions that reduce the interaction and exchange of ideas between users, and maintain the freedom of the internet. But the most important thing is to cultivate user literacy, learn to cherish the pluralistic democratic values brought by the internet, understand the value and importance of rational speech, and learn to be responsible for their speech regardless of whether the user is anonymous or not.
Reference
7NEWS Australia (Director). (2021, February 24). Federal Government introduces new cyberbullying and online abuse laws | 7NEWS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlR9wEBx5SQ
Amanda Todd: Dutch man convicted of sexually extorting teenager. (2022, August 8). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62326780
Aswad, E. (2016, October 18). The Role of U.S. Technology Companies as Enforcers of Europe’s New Internet hate Speech Ban – Columbia Human Rights Law Review. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr-online/the-role-of-u-s-technology-companies-as-enforcers-of-europes-new-internet-hate-speech-ban/
Banks, J. (2010). Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2010.522323
Delgado, R. (2018). Understanding Words That Wound. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=JwLFDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Understanding+words+that+wound.&ots=0jXv-Mc-8b&sig=yQFZ6bllPxgEQ1rvGiGhwPgOrvw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Understanding%20words%20that%20wound.&f=false
Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering Online Hate Speech. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231/PDF/233231eng.pdf.multi
Guiora, A., & Park, E. A. (2017). Hate Speech on Social Media. Philosophia, 45(3), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-017-9858-4
Howard, J. W. (2019). Free Speech and Hate Speech. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
Mondal, M., Silva, L. A., & Benevenuto, F. (2017). A Measurement Study of Hate Speech in Social Media. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078714.3078723
Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1997.11518176
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
Scott, C. R. (2004). Benefits and Drawbacks of Anonymous Online Communication: Legal Challenges and Communicative Recommendations. Free Speech Yearbook, 41(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2004.10556309
SELMA Partners. (2019, April 8). The consequences of online hate speech – a teenager’s perspective. https://hackinghate.eu/news/the-consequences-of-online-hate-speech-a-teenager-s-perspective/
Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. In The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
