How digital hate speech on different online networks has been the subject of ethical challenges in a multicultural society?
The concept of ‘hate speech’ has been the subject of several controversial matters. It has been debated that hate speech means more than simply hating towards the other, but it is a much complex and ambiguous concept which will be discussed throughout this paper. Hate speech has been recorded throughout the years and it is a common subject vastly present on online networks such as Facebook portraying itself as democratizing forces; more focus has been placed on its function in mediating and amplifying both traditional and contemporary forms of abuse, hatred, and prejudice in recent years as stated by Matamoros-Fernández and Farkas (2021). For several years the concept of hate speech has been more publicized, and the freedom of speech has been impacted by the latter as it is easier to find hate speech on online platforms. Chetty (2018) confirms that one of the reasons that hate speech might happen is the freedom of expression. In this paper we will discussed about hate speech and its involvement in a multicultural society.
Chetty (2018) defines hate speech as a language which frequently targets the uneducated in order to induce dread in them. Superiors will forget that the uneducated group has an equal right while spewing vitriol. When hate speech targets a traditional symbol, event, or activity, it becomes more dangerous and lethal. Individuals’ personal information has less importance compared to the messages sent to them about their nation, color, race, religion, sexual orientation, occupation, gender, or disability. So, it is reasonable to view hate speech as a direct descendent of free speech. Hate speech has grown fashionable, and individuals are utilizing it as a quick method to gain popularity without exerting much effort. The boundaries of free speech are put to the test by hate speech. Different laws apply to hate speech in various nations. Hate speech frequently challenges freedom of expression and infringes on a person’s fundamental rights. But what is hate speech and how can it have such an impact on ethics in a multicultural society says Arofah (2018). A rhetorical analysis of hate speech will be the ungovernability of such vile actions on online networks.
The Internet and social media are major contributors to the spread of hostile and extremist discourses as stipulated by Ganesh (2018) and he also put forward that the structure, dynamics, and possible control of digital hate culture by examining contemporary networks– digitally-mediated and extreme right-wing communication targeting the imagination and existing cultural practices. Hate speech in itself is a complex concept and has a variety of affluence on several platforms like online networks, democratic digital media, the cultural aspect of society, and communication studies. Hatred is a human trait that naturally comes from aggression and develops from a primal need for survival. As Arofah (2018) said, there are many different meanings of hate, and it is a complicated issue. There are several methods to express hate and hate speech. Nowadays, hate speech on social media is experiencing exponential growth and has the ability to reach a far wider audience than even the most extreme print media did in the past. As Arofah (2018) further explained, hate speech means the difficult balancing act between fundamental rights and ideals like freedom of expression and the protection of human dignity. Arofah (2018) elaborated his point regarding a society which is multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic society, whereby hate speech spreads like wildfire through online media, mostly through websites and social media like Facebook and Twitter because of the unrestricted freedom of expression. There are no real set of rules and regulations which is enforced to eliminate what is considered as hate speech.
“Hate speech including defamation, harassment, slander, provocation, and threats against individuals or groups especially the one that covering race and religion was the most frequently reported” (Arofah, 2018).
Therefore, hate is much more detrimental than racism, it targets more groups of people, and the concept of hate speech can be varied depending on the people they are aiming at. Arofah (2018) highlighted that hate speech is frequently heard in political discourses, especially during election-year candidate campaigns. I have personally been to political meetings, and I can truthfully say that it is true, during elections the different parties have various negative arguments and hateful opinions towards the opposing parties. In a multicultural society it can cause quite a lot of tension between the political parties when the members propagate this hate culture.
Chetty (2018) stated that speech is a complex instrument for transferring information from one person to another, including ideas, opinions, feelings, and other types of information. Typically, social networks are utilized for verbal and symbolic communication. Matamoros-Fernandez and Farkas (2021) also stipulated that since social media has come to dominate geopolitical landscapes in virtually every part of the world, new and old racist actions are becoming more common on these platforms. Racist discourse thrives on social media, even through covert tactics like meme weaponization and the use of false identities to spread racial hatred as confirmed by Matamoros-Fernandez and Farkas (2021). Memes sharing has been a tool to proliferate hate speech through the web and has been used maliciously to encourage hate speech. Paz et al. (2020) explained that hate speech is a conscious and willful public statement intended to cause harm to a targeted group of people. In this particular case, this group of people has no specific restrictions, without any limited characteristics such as race, color, gender, religion, ethnicity or nationality.
According to Paz et al. (2020), hate speech can make multiple appearances in both traditional media and social networks. The first one is one where hate speech is manifested verbally, non-verbally and symbolically. The second one is more metaphorical terms which make it complicated to differentiate because hate speech is also known as a negative cast which is generally accepted. And lastly, hate speech assumes that others have malevolent and deceptive motives while frequently using negative and harmful sentences to incite public outrage or negative actions. Paz et al. (2020) explained in their study that hate speech creates social structures based on disparity and dominance. It is known now that hate speech can be caused by a certain group of people targeting other groups of people by making them feel small and inferior.
So, Paz et al. (2020) concluded by saying that there different categories of hate speech which are gender, sexual identity, nationality; a stance regarding particular historical events, religious beliefs, the environment, sphere, scenario or setting in which the discourse takes place and also the influence of the medium used to extend hate speech such as through newspapers and other print media, online networking sites, websites, movies, and so on. Chetty (2018) also shared the same opinion that the consequences of hate speech vary depending on the individual engaged, the content, the place, and the conditions. This implies that the impact and control of hate speech are determined by who, what, where, and when it is delivered.
By reflecting on what Paz et al. (2020) explained, Matamoros-Fernandez and Farkas (2021) said that the affordances, regulations, algorithms, and business actions have reshaped the racial dynamic with the use of social media. Matamoros-Fernandez and Farkas (2021) have the same opinion with Paz et al. (2020) when talking about how social media is heavily affecting the stereotypes and the wide spread of hate speech, when giving the examples of ‘Snapchat and Instagram have come under fire for releasing filters that encourage white people to perform “digital blackface” and automatically lighten the skin of non-whites’. Additionally, by tracking user activity, Facebook enabled marketers to exclude individuals who had an “ethnic affinity” for African Americans or Hispanics. TikTok has also experienced backlash after suspending a viral video highlighting China’s oppression of Uighurs. Hence, it is clearly visible how social media is one of the major tools that is used to spread hate speech.
Mauritius is a multicultural country and Ng Tseung-Wong &Verkuyten (2018) said that the word multiculturalism is used in many contexts and for various objectives. Multiculturalism, as a philosophy, stresses the necessity of understanding and celebrating ethnic group diversity. Proponents of multiculturalism say that a society cannot disregard the demands of variety because of the cultural and economic benefits of diversity, as well as the reality that minority groups require and deserve cultural acknowledgement and affirmation. At the same time, these proponents say that unity and a shared identity are equally crucial.
‘Group difference must be validated in the context of national connection and shared belonging. This emphasis on both cultural variety and national unity is distinctive of Mauritius.’ Ng Tseung-Wong &Verkuyten (2018).
Ng Tseug-Wong & Verkuyten (2018) promotes Mauritius by saying that: “The Mauritius nation is specifically characterized by “unity in variety” in the form of a “fruit salad” multiculturalism in which the survival of diverse cultural groups is regarded as critical to the nation’s existence and coherence. The Mauritius national self-understanding of being a diasporic nation is inextricably linked to cultural variety and pluralism; and dual identities symbolize the national ideal. But how can hate speech affect this particular island?
As explained earlier, hate speech is very subjective and contradictory. As being a person who was born and raised in Mauritius, we can see and learn that it is not what is shown on the various media platforms, there is so much hate speech on the social platforms towards several religions and regarding different ethnicities of certain people. Nothing is hidden; hate speech has grown more and more notorious on the social platforms mainly Facebook and TikTok which have been gaining considerable popularity among all the generations residing on the island. It can be seen that hate speech is a weapon used to target anyone and everyone now and the freedom of expression loses all its meaningfulness. Even when voicing out an opinion, it can result in a backlash and online bullying. No one is safe nowadays on social media platforms and definitely not in Mauritius. When reading the comments on several posts, or looking at memes or watching viral videos, people can be both the victims and the one who is promoting hateful speech on those platforms. As Chetty (2018) said ‘Hate speech does not target based on only single identity. It can target on the basis of gender, religion, race, and disability.’
To conclude, hate speech and cultural diversity are closely linked; because by explaining hate speech, people have an understanding that is not only about one negative connotation, but the concept of spewing hateful discourses is fundamentally different in different situations. Hate speech is a vast topic when one just glance at it but when referring to the multiculturalism aspect involved, it can be closely looked at to distinguish the link between hate speech and multiculturalism. A country being multicultural is prone to be the target of hate speech easier than a country with only one religion or culture. Hate speech can be related to several topics whether it is on social media or verbally. In a multicultural diaspora, it has been seen that hate speech is more and more common, there are not laws that is enforced to try to dial down this harmful language which is becoming largely popular and affecting all cultures, races, genders, and ethnicities without any disparity.
Reference List:
Arofah,K.(2018). Rhetorical Analysis of Hate Speech: Case Study of Hate Speech Related to Ahok’s Religion Blasphemy Case. 11(1), 91-105.
https://doi.org/10.29313/mediator.v11i1.3119
Chetty, N., Alathur, S. (2018). Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. ScienceDirect, 40(108-118) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.003
Ganesh, B. (2018). THE UNGOVERNABILITY OF DIGITAL HATE CULTURE. Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), 30. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ungovernability-digital-hate-culture/docview/2163329719/se-2
Kramsh,C., (2014). Language and Culture. AILA review,27(1), 30-55.https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.27.02kra
Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Farkas, J. (2021). Racism, Hate Speech, and Social Media: A Systematic Review and Critique. Television & New Media, 22(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420982230
Ng Tseung-Wong, C., & Verkuyten, M. (2018). Diversity ideologies and intergroup attitudes: When multiculturalism is beneficial for majority group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(2), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216663021
Paz, M. A., Montero-Díaz, J., & Moreno-Delgado, A. (2020). Hate Speech: A Systematized Review. SAGE Open, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020973022
Van der Werf, F., Verkuyten, M., Martinovic, B., & Ng Tseung-Wong, C. (2018). What it means to be a national: A study among adolescents in multicultural Mauritius. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(4), 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000196
Hi L, The thing is the paper is mainly concentrated on the African continent particularly.If you make an analysis of…