Search

This paper addresses the question whether and to what extent the experience of online hate speech affects victims' sense of security. Studies on hate crime in general show that such crimes are associated with a significantly higher feeling of insecurity, but there is little evidence concerning feeling of insecurity due to online hate speech. Based on a secondary data analysis of a representative population survey in Lower Saxony, Germany, on the topic of cybercrime in 2020 (N = 4,102), we tested three hypotheses regarding the effect of offline and online hate speech on feelings of insecurity. As a result, compared to non-victims, victims of online hate speech exhibit a more pronounced feeling of insecurity outside the Internet, while victims of other forms of cybercrime do not differ in this regard from non-victims. We found no effect for offline hate speech when relevant control variables were included in the statistical model. Possible reasons for this finding are assumed to lie in the characteristics of the phenomenon of online hate speech, for example, because the hateful content spreads uncontrollably on the Internet and reaches its victims even in protected private spheres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about the current state of research on the involvement of young people in hate speech. Thus, this systematic review presents findings on a) the prevalence of hate speech among children and adolescents and on hate speech definitions that guide prevalence assessments for this population; and b) the theoretical and empirical overlap of hate speech with related concepts. This review was guided by the Cochrane approach. To be included, publications were required to deal with real-life experiences of hate speech, to provide empirical data on prevalence for samples aged 5 to 21 years and they had to be published in academic formats. Included publications were full-text coded using two raters (κ =.80) and their quality was assessed. The string-guided electronic search (ERIC, SocInfo, Psycinfo, Psyndex) yielded 1,850 publications. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and their findings were systematized. Twelve publications were of medium quality due to minor deficiencies in their theoretical or methodological foundations. All studies used samples of adolescents and none of younger children. Nine out of 10 studies applied quantitative methodologies. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies were included. Results showed that frequencies for hate speech exposure were higher than those related to victimization and perpetration. Definitions of hate speech and assessment instruments were heterogeneous. Empirical evidence for an often theorized overlap between hate speech and bullying was found. The paper concludes by presenting a definition of hate speech, including implications for practice, policy, and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aggressive and hateful user comments on news sites and social media threaten discussions on the Internet and pose a difficult challenge for content regulation. Previous research has mainly focused on the analysis of moderation strategies in dealing with such comments. In contrast, little attention was paid to the issue of which comments are considered problematic by content moderators in the first place. The answer to this question has more than theoretical relevance, but practical significance against the backdrop of increasing efforts to automate the detection of hate speech or toxicity in user comments. Based on 20 interviews, this paper explores what comment moderators in Germany consider to be hate comments, how they moderate them, and how differences in moderation practices can be explained. Our findings show strong agreement regarding extreme cases of hate comments, whereby there is overlap with the theoretical concept of hate speech, but also forms of incivility. Moreover, the interviews revealed differences in the perception and handling of hate comments, which can be linked to explanatory factors at the levels of the individual, professional routines, and the organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explore a particular type of propagandistic message, which we call "provocative insinuation". For example: 'Iraqi refugee is convicted in Germany of raping and murdering teenage girl'. Although this sentence seems to merely report a fact, it also conveys a potentially hateful message about Iraqi refugees. We look at the argumentative roles that these utterances play in public discourse. Specifically, we argue that they implicitly address the question of the integration of refugees and migrants, and in fact aim to tilt the audience against these groups by strongly inviting hearers to make generalisations based on "striking" properties. We examine different strategies to counteract the conveyed hateful message. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although hate speech is widely recognized as an online phenomenon, very few studies have investigated hate speech among adolescents in offline settings (e.g., schools). At the same time, not much is known about countering hate speech (counterspeech) among adolescents and which factors are associated with it. To this end, the present study used the socio-ecological framework to investigate the direct and indirect links among one contextual factor (i.e., classroom climate) and two intrapersonal factors (i.e., empathy for victims of hate speech, self-efficacy regarding intervention in hate speech) to understand counterspeech among adolescents. The sample is based on self-reports of 3,225 students in Grades 7 to 9 (51.7% self-identified as female) from 36 schools in Germany and Switzerland. Self-report questionnaires were administered to measure classroom climate, empathy, self-efficacy, and counterspeech. After controlling for adolescents' grade, gender, immigrant background, and socioeconomic status (SES), the 2-(1-1)-1 multilevel mediation analysis showed that classroom climate (L2), empathy for victims of hate speech (L1), and self-efficacy toward intervention in hate speech (L1) had a positive effect on countering hate speech (L1). Classroom climate (L2) was also positively linked to empathy for victims of hate speech (L1), and self-efficacy toward intervention in hate speech (L1). Furthermore, classroom climate (L2) was indirectly associated with countering hate speech (L1) via greater empathy (L1) and self-efficacy (L1). The findings highlight the need to focus on contextual and intrapersonal factors when trying to facilitate adolescents' willingness to face hate speech with civic courage and proactively engage against it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Yearbook of European Integration / Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej is the property of Faculty of Political Science & Journalism, Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Why is far-right rhetoric so dangerous? In recent years, scholars and policy makers alike have striven to unpack the black box of extremists' online communication and the rise of far-right violence. Particularly the role of social media in spreading hate speech and fostering radicalization has caught a lot of attention; however, there has been little success in pinning down the drivers of violence. Drawing on the concept of dangerous speech, we take a step back from the violent effects of far-right online communication. Instead, we examine its logical functioning to illuminate the upstream processes that constitute hate and legitimize violence. More concretely, we study how far-right narratives employed on social media mobilize emotions that prepare for the acceptance or even use of violence. Analyzing the argumentative structures of two anti-immigration campaigns in Germany, we find a network of narratives where narratives of imperilment— supported by narratives of conspiracy and inequality—converge into a greater story of national threat and awakening. By constructing a situation of collective self-defense, violence becomes a logical option, even if violent action is not explicitly proposed. Counter-narrative efforts should thus not only focus on hate speech but also address the myths of victimhood, which are constitutive of (violent) palingenetic fantasies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since reunification in 1990, the German government has taken numerous steps to counter antisemitism and improve its relations with the Jewish community more broadly. Its approach has consisted primarily of two parts: antiradicalization legal measures and public diplomacy. In terms of legal measures, Germany has banned hate speech and incitement, adjusted immigration policy for Jews, and granted Judaism full legal status. In terms of public diplomacy, Germany has created a network of both governmental and non-governmental organizations to counter antisemitic attitudes within domestic society and to demonstrate progress abroad. This article examines these facets of the German approach, evaluates its success through an analysis of extremist group membership and survey data measuring antisemitic attitudes, and discusses some evolving challenges to which the approach must adapt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the perception of writers in Germany, free speech is under strong pressure. A survey study, in which 526 literature writers took part, reveals innumerable aspects of hate speech, online harassment, and even physical assaults. Every second person has already experienced assaults on his or her person and is also aware of attacks on colleagues. Three quarters are concerned about freedom of expression in Germany and complain of an increase in threats, intimidation, and hateful reactions. The research project was developed in collaboration between the Institute for Media Research, University of Rostock, and the PEN Center Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terrorist attacks often fuel online hate and increase the expression of xenophobic and antiminority messages. Previous research has focused on the impact of terrorist attacks on prejudiced attitudes toward groups linked to the perpetrators as the cause of this increase. We argue that social norms can contain the expression of prejudice after the attacks. We report the results of a combination of a natural and a laboratory-in-the-field (lab-inthe-field) experiment in which we exploit data collected about the occurrence of two consecutive Islamist terrorist attacks in Germany, the Wü rzburg and Ansbach attacks, in July 2016. The experiment compares the effect of the terrorist attacks in hate speech toward refugees in contexts where a descriptive norm against the use of hate speech is evidently in place to contexts in which the norm is ambiguous because participants observe antiminority comments. Hate toward refugees, but not toward other minority groups, increased as a result of the attacks only in the absence of a strong norm. These results imply that attitudinal changes due to terrorist attacks are more likely to be voiced if norms erode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi is the property of Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)