DANGEROUS SPEECH GUIDELINE SUMMARY

A. Hate Speech

There are many definitions of hate speech. This recent one from the United Nations is very
broad: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses
pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who
they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent,
gender or other identity factor” - UN Strategy & Action Plan on Hate Speech

Must contain two components: (i) Constitutes an attack, i.e. dehumanizing or demeaning
sentiment: e.g. dogs, insects, vermin, references to genitalia, scum, parasite, worthless, filthy,
criminals, thieves, backwards, physically inferior, mentally inferior, morally inferior. (ii)
Sentiment is expressed because of who they are based on a “protected characteristic”: e.g.
race, ethnicity, color, gender, religion, social origin (caste, class, socio-economic status),
national origin (location of birth), migrant status, sexual orientation

May be explicit or implicit: (i) Explicit: overt and context-independent, e.g. “These [ethnic
group] are ignorant people”, “These [religious group] are rats”. (ii) Implicit: subtle and context
dependent language e.g. “You can’t expect too much from these people.” “They deserve to be
treated this way”. When hate speech is implicit, understanding the intent of speech is necessary

May be direct or indirect: (i) Direct: an expression towards an individual or group, e.g. “You are
a dirty [racist slur]!” “[individual name] is typical of her kind…” (ii) Indirect: a general statement
about an individual or group, e.g. “They [social origin] are nothing more than petty criminals”.
“All [migrant status] are a cancer on our society”

What is NOT Hate Speech

● Speech that attacks government, institutions, or symbols. These are not considered
“protected characteristics”
● Speech that is defamatory, but does not invoke a protected characteristic i.e. political
and influential actors are often insulted as “thieves”, “corrupt”, “liars” (or worse!) on
the basis of their statements, policies, ideology, or actions
● Speech that references a “protected characteristic” in a benign (matter of fact) manner ●
Speech that references “hate speech” for the purposes of condemning it

B. Dangerous Speech

The Dangerous Speech Project defines dangerous speech as “any form of expression (e.g.
speech, text, or images) that can increase the risk that its audience will condone or participate
in violence against members or another group.” Dangerous speech diverges from hate speech
in two notable ways:

● Dangerous speech can be directed at any group, not just those defined by a “protected
characteristic.” Dangerous speech is concerned with “in-group” vs “out-group” dynamics,
where the “out-group” has some characteristic that is both different from and meaningful to
the “in-group” audience. It’s possible the out-group is defined by ethnic, religious or racial
characteristics, which are considered “protected”, but it also may be that the out-group is
defined by characteristics that are not “protected”. For example, dangerous speech can be
aimed at people who hold certain political views, or journalists; hate speech cannot.

● Dangerous speech increases the risk of violence: it makes at least some of the people exposed
to it believe that violence is acceptable or even necessary. Usually this happens because the
dangerous speech makes the audience fear that another group of people will harm them if they
don’t “protect” themselves against that. For this purpose violence is defined as direct physical
(or bodily) harm that may be inflicted on the out-group. It’s important to note that actual
violence does not need to occur for speech to be considered “dangerous”, only the
understanding that said speech increases the likelihood of its occurrence.

C. Dangerous Speech Framework

One cannot make a list of words that are

dangerous, since the way in which any
message will be understood – like its effect on
the audience– depends not only on its words
but on how it is communicated: by whom, to
whom, and under what circumstances. The
very same words can be highly inflammatory,
or or benign. The Dangerous Speech Project has
developed a framework for estimating how
dangerous a particular example of speech is, in the
context in which it was made or disseminated. The
framework is based on five elements that can all
make speech more or less dangerous:

Message
The message usually contains some of the typical rhetorical devices that we have observed in
dangerous speech. We call those “hallmarks” because they are so common and characteristic.
Note that the language of hallmarks, like that of dangerous speech in general, may be explicit
or non-explicit, i.e. using subtle or coded language that is contextually understood by the
audience. Also, a hallmark does not by itself identify speech as dangerous. For example, one
can refer to another person as a dog or even as vermin, in a way that won’t make the audience
more likely to commit or condone violence against them. Some audiences simply won’t pay
attention, or the remark might even be a joke. That’s why it’s important to use the whole
analytical framework. The hallmarks of dangerous speech that we have so far identified are
these:

● Dehumanization
● Devalue/Demean without Dehumanization
 ● Threat to group integrity/ purity
● Accusation in Mirror
● Insufficient loyalty
● Assertion of attack against women and girls

In the speech it is important to understand the message. Identify exactly what content in the
speech might inspire violence. Does it contain any hallmarks of dangerous speech? If you notice
any other patterns or characteristics of speech that you believe make it dangerous, and that are
NOT included in our list of hallmarks, please record it.

Audience
The audience must be susceptible to the message for speech to be dangerous. The most
inflammatory speech may be unlikely to increase the risk of violence if the audience is not
inspired by it to act or at least to think differently. Audiences are often more susceptible when
they have experienced economic hardship, alienation, unresolved collective trauma, or social
norms in favor of obedience to authority. And dangerous speech is often false, thus audiences
seeking bias-confirming information, or who are not skilled at distinguishing lies from truth,
may be particularly susceptible.
Since messages usually reach more than one kind of group or audience, e.g. rural grandmothers
of one ethnic group and urban teenagers of another, focus your analysis on the group or groups
of people who are most likely to react to the speech, with increased fear, hatred, or especially
with violence. Some things to consider:
● Which is the audience susceptible and vulnerable and why? Was the speech directed
primarily to members of the group it purported to describe, i.e. targets; to members of
the speaker’s own group; to both; or to someone else?
● Is the audience experiencing fear or desperation? For example, consider if they are
suffering economic insecurity (e.g. lacking in food, shelter, employment) especially in
comparison with the recent past?
● Are there other factors that make the audience particularly sympathetic to the
message?

The social and historical context

The social and historical context in which speech is made plays a role in whether it’s dangerous,
or how dangerous it is. Where there is a history of violence or longstanding, unresolved
grievances between groups, messages encouraging violence - or describing another group as
planning violence – are often more dangerous. It may also be that social norms or policies have
systematized discrimination or intolerance towards a particular out-group, placing them at
special or persistent risk of violence. What are the most important features of the context that
might make the speech dangerous? Some things to consider:
● What is the relationship between the target group (or out-group) and the speaker? For
example, are they from religious sects or racial groups with a history of conflict?
● Are there present or past systemic factors affecting the target group such as legalized
discrimination and/or lack of legal protections, lack of representation, persecution, etc.?
What are they, exactly?
● Have influential figures in government, popular culture, or other areas spoken against
 or ostracized the target group?
● Have there been outbreaks of violence against the target group in the past, and/or
outbreaks of violence following instances of hate speech?

Speaker
While dangerous speech can emanate from any source, the authority or influential status of the
speaker can make speech especially dangerous. A speaker’s influence may be derived from
political, religious, or social status and, in some cases, be accompanied by the power to control
resources needed by the audience. An influential speaker may not always be the source of
speech, but may spread speech created by someone else, lending his or her authority to the
original message. And in some cases, the speaker is irrelevant since their identity is unknown to
the audience. This is quite common online. We may consider:
● Who is the speaker or source of the content? What details about them make
them influential in this context?
● Are they a respected political or religious figure? Respected by whom, if so? If
not, have they been quoted or publicly supported by other influential people or
groups?
● Do they have some form of influence, control, or authority over a particular
audience, especially the audience most likely to resort to violence (usually young
men)?
● Are they a popular, charismatic, or a particularly gifted public speaker?

Medium
Social media has facilitated connectivity between speakers, and audiences susceptible to
harmful messages. It enables the spread of dangerous speech by influential and anonymous
speakers with unprecedented scale, speed and reach. Speakers that espouse fringe ideologies
often find like-minded audiences and form echo-chambers in which dangerous speech can
flourish. Speech that people might not dare utter offline appears online, and can now readily
find susceptible audiences within social media ecosystems. A few questions to consider:
● How was the speech delivered or disseminated, and how does that affect its impact?
● Was the speech public or private? If private, what was the nature of the group it was
posted in or delivered to, and how might that affect its impact?
● If written, was it published in a media source or website that is influential or
respected, especially among the intended audience?
● If spoken or posted publicly, was the location of the speech particularly significant?
● Does the intended audience have and/or use access to alternative sources of
information?
● What language was the speech act delivered in? Did this make it more convincing?

Only two of the five elements are absolutely necessary, for content to be “dangerous speech”:

1. The message is inflammatory

2. The audience is susceptible to it