Dangerous Speech: A Practical Guide

Dangerous Speech: A Practical Guide

Dangerous speech is any form of expression that increases the risk of an audience condoning or committing violence against members of another group. It is distinct from generalized "hate speech" because its definition is narrower, focusing on its capacity to incite intergroup physical violence rather than subjective emotions like hatred.

Defining Dangerous Speech

The term "dangerous speech" was coined by Benesch in the early 2000s after observing striking similarities in the rhetoric used by political leaders before outbreaks of major violence.

• Definition: Any form of expression (speech, text, or images) that can increase the risk that its audience will condone or commit violence against members of another group.

• Key Distinction: It refers to increasing the *risk* of violence, not directly *causing* it, as violence is multi-causal.

• Focus: Primarily concerned with direct physical harm between groups, including speech that leads an audience to *condone* violence, not just commit it.

• Target Group: Dangerous speech targets an "out-group" defined by a meaningful characteristic (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, occupation). While usually targeting groups, an individual can sometimes symbolize a group (e.g., Malala Yousafzai representing subversive women or George Soros as a wealthy, powerful Jew).

• Fear-Mongering: It often promotes fear, portraying other groups as serious threats, making violence seem defensive and justified. Frightening messages tend to spread widely, even among those without malevolent intentions, as they feel genuine fear.

• Truthfulness: Dangerous speech is often false, leveraging misinformation (false assertions) or disinformation (intentionally spread false assertions) to persuade audiences, especially when the falsehoods are frightening.

• Indirect Harm: While speech can cause direct harm (e.g., offending, humiliating), dangerous speech leads to harm *indirectly* by motivating others to act violently against a group.

• Distinction from Hate Speech:

  • Hate speech is broadly defined and hard to apply consistently due to the subjectivity of "hatred."

  • Hate speech typically vilifies a person or group based on shared identity (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation).

  • Broad definitions can jeopardize freedom of speech, as they can be used by governments to suppress dissent or target minorities.

  • Dangerous speech is a narrower, more specific category focused on preventing intergroup violence, a harm that is more universally agreed upon as undesirable.

The Five Elements Framework for Analyzing Dangerous Speech

An inflammatory message alone does not automatically constitute dangerous speech. Its impact depends significantly on context. The Dangerous Speech Project has developed a five-part framework to systematically analyze speech in specific contexts and assess its potential for harm. All five elements do not need to be relevant in every case, but inflammatory content and a susceptible audience are always required.

The dangerousness of speech exists on a spectrum; accepting moderately dangerous messages can lead to accepting more extreme ones, eroding social barriers to violence. Early dangerous speech might be ambiguous, becoming clearer and more direct as violence approaches.

Analyzing these elements requires extensive knowledge of relevant language, culture, and social conditions. The ultimate question is: "Did/would this message make people more ready to commit or condone violence?"

1. The Message

   Dangerous speech cannot be identified by a list of words, as meaning is context-dependent. It often employs coded language understood by the in-group but not the out-group, allowing deniability.

   The framework identifies "hallmarks" or rhetorical patterns frequently found in dangerous speech, though their presence alone does not make a message dangerous.

   Hallmarks of Dangerous Speech:

   • Dehumanization: Describing other groups as less than human (e.g., animals, insects, microorganisms) to reduce moral consideration and make their suffering seem less significant.

     • Biological Subhuman: Comparing target groups to vermin (rats, cockroaches), beasts (apes), or biological hazards (viruses, tumors). Examples include Khmer Rouge rhetoric against "microbes" leading to the Cambodian genocide.

     • Supernatural: Portraying out-groups as "demons," "evil spirits," or "monsters," making them seem supernaturally strong and threatening (e.g., Japanese propaganda during WWII).

     • Environmental Threats: Using metaphors of floods, pollution, or diseases to describe migrants or other groups (e.g., "tidal wave of migrants," "rising tide of color"). This combines demonizing (seen as metaphysically and physically threatening) with enfeebling (seen as physically innocuous but metaphysically threatening).

     • Note: Dehumanization is not always necessary for violence; people can inflict cruelty while recognizing their victims' humanity.

   • Accusation in a Mirror: Attributing to the enemy group the very acts of violence the speaker intends to commit against them, framing violence as self-defense.

     • Example: Rwandan propagandist Léon Mugesera accused Tutsi of planning to exterminate Hutu, justifying violence against them. Nazi propaganda falsely accused Jewish people of a "murderous plan."

     • Extreme Form: Claiming one's own group faces genocide, as Himmler and Mladić did to justify mass killings.

   • Threat to Group Integrity or Purity: Asserting that members of an out-group will cause irreparable damage to the in-group's purity, identity, or culture. This appeals to strong emotional connections.

     • Example: A Nazi cartoon depicting a Jewish person as a "worm" inside an apple, or Kalenjin calling Kikuyu "madoadoa" (spots) in Kenya.

     • Cultural Suicide: Anders Breivik's justification of violence to prevent European "cultural suicide" from multiculturalism and Islam.

     • Existential Threat: Soviet rhetoric against "kulaks" as an existential threat to ordinary Russians.

   • Assertion of Attack Against Women and Girls: Suggesting that in-group women or girls have been or will be threatened, harassed, or defiled by members of an out-group. This often symbolizes a threat to the group's identity and elicits a strong protective response.

     • Historical Examples: False claims of attacks against white women leading to lynchings of black men in the US (e.g., Tulsa, 1921).

     • Contemporary Examples: Rumors of Rohingya Muslim men raping a Buddhist woman in Myanmar, or a Polish magazine cover depicting an "Islamic rape of Europe."

   • Questioning In-Group Loyalty: Characterizing in-group members who are sympathetic to the out-group as disloyal or traitorous. This can lead to severe punishment for "moderate" members.

     • Example: In the Rwandan genocide, "moderate" Hutu were killed for not participating in the violence or for helping Tutsi. Hutu Ten Commandments denounced Hutu in relationships with Tutsi as traitors.

2. The Audience

   An audience's susceptibility is crucial for dangerous speech to inspire violence. Factors increasing susceptibility include:

   • Existing Fears: Prior or current threats of violence, or saturation with frightening messages.

   • Socio-economic Conditions: Economic hardship, alienation, unresolved collective trauma.

   • Social Norms: Obedience to authority.

   • Vulnerability to Falsehoods: Lack of critical thinking skills to distinguish truth from lies.

   • Binding Speech: Language that strengthens in-group bonds (e.g., familial belonging, "blood" ties) can amplify the effects of dangerous speech hallmarks.

   • Lone Wolves: Highly susceptible individuals can be moved to violence independently, like Timothy McVeigh inspired by The Turner Diaries.

3. The Context

   The social and historical context significantly shapes how speech is understood and its dangerousness. Relevant aspects include:

   • History of Violence: Past conflicts or unresolved grievances between groups make messages encouraging violence more inflammatory.

   • Systemic Discrimination: Social norms, laws, or policies that consistently place a group at risk, normalizing their inferiority and making anti-group speech more dangerous. Examples include the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan.

   • Resource Competition: Competition for vital resources like land or water.

   • Early Warning: Systematically studying changes in the nature and volume of dangerous speech can serve as an early warning indicator for violence.

4. The Speaker

   The level of influence or authority of the speaker makes a message more dangerous.

   • Sources of Influence: Personal charisma, high social status, official political office, community leadership, popular entertainment, religious figures, or even trusted family and friends.

   • Government Role: Governments have disproportionate influence and can disseminate dangerous speech through official statements and laws (e.g., Russia's "homosexual propaganda" law).

   • Second Speakers: Individuals who disseminate or distort others' content, reaching new or larger audiences. This includes viral sharing on social media (e.g., distorted child kidnapping video on WhatsApp in India, Trump retweeting false videos from Britain First).

   • Anonymous Speakers: Influence may be irrelevant if the speaker is anonymous, but the message can still be dangerous if inflammatory and the audience is primed.

5. The Medium

   The form of speech and the manner of its dissemination affect its reception and dangerousness.

   • Reach: How large an audience the speech can reach (e.g., public social media posts vs. private conversations).

   • Persuasiveness Reinforcement:

     • Repetition: Frequent repetition increases acceptance of an idea.

     • Source Credibility: Publication in or broadcast by trusted media sources.

     • Language: Messages delivered in a listener's vernacular language can rouse emotions more effectively ("heard with their hearts").

     • Lack of Alternative News: Absence of diverse or credible news sources makes audiences more vulnerable to inflammatory messages (e.g., Facebook as the primary source of information in Myanmar leading to anti-Rohingya rhetoric).

   • Digital Media Impact (Online Social Media - source 3):

     • Rapid Spread: Ideas (including extremist ones) spread quickly, especially where mass violence risk exists.

     • Echo Chambers: Online platforms enable fringe ideas to find audiences, forming echo chambers that reinforce and radicalize beliefs, fostering collective dissemination with fervor.

     • Anonymity: Users can spread ideas online they wouldn't dare express offline.

Countering Dangerous Speech

The goal is to diminish dangerous speech or its harmful effects without impinging on freedom of expression.

• Avoid Censorship: Censorship by governments or private companies is risky for democracy, prone to errors, and difficult to scale effectively due to the sheer volume and contextual ambiguity of online content. Automated systems often fail to distinguish hate speech from efforts to denounce it and can remove evidence of human rights abuses.

• Counterspeech: Direct responses to hateful or harmful speech. This approach aligns with the principle that free expression allows "best and safest ideas" to prevail.

  • Examples: Public opposition to anti-Muslim ads and creation of Muslim-defending ads in response; Megan Phelps-Roper changing her extremist views through Twitter conversations with counterspeakers.

  • Digital Strategies: WhatsApp implemented limits on message forwarding and labeled forwarded messages to slow misinformation spread.

• Prevention and Support:

  • Persuading people to stop posting harmful content proactively.

  • Supporting those who are attacked by dangerous speech.

  • Organizations like Over Zero and Renaissance Numérique (with its "Seriously" program) offer resources and education on effective counterspeech and interventions.

Key Takeaways

• Dangerous speech is a specific category of communication that increases the risk of intergroup physical violence.

• It is distinct from "hate speech" by its focus on inciting violence rather than subjective hatred.

• Analyzing dangerous speech requires considering the message's content (hallmarks), the audience's susceptibility, the historical and social context, the speaker's influence, and the medium of communication.

• Effective responses focus on counterspeech, education, and strategic interventions rather than broad censorship, to protect freedom of expression while mitigating harm.