Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article argues for a definition of online hate speech as a contextualised speech act that is part of a social process of alienation. It suggests that hate speech comes in degrees, is contextual, involves already existing power dynamics, and ‘others’ its targets by creating in/out groups. I first review the various stances towards understanding the phenomenon of online hate speech, including approaches that focus on online hate speech as an interaction shaped by its medium, while also emphasizing the need to consider the role of implicatures in speech acts when defining hate speech. Second, I argue that the relationality of online speech implies that any message is embedded in idiosyncratic socio-cultural norms, and that therefore a ‘one size fits all’ definition of hate speech is elusive. I conclude by suggesting that contextualized hate speech is embedded in a social process of alienation and should be understood as a continuum.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adelman, Howard
    2008 “Theories of Genocide: The Case of Rwanda.” InExplaining the Breakdown of Ethnic Relations: Why Neighbours Kill, ed. byVictoria Esses, and Richard A. Vernon. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781444303056.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303056.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allport, Gordon W.
    1954The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Angermuller, Johannes
    2018 “Truth after Post-truth: For a Strong Programme in Discourse Studies.” Palgrave Communications4 (30): 1–8. doi:  10.1057/s41599‑018‑0080‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0080-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baider, Fabienne
    2013 “The Saliency Hypothesis: Affects and Emotions.” InResearch Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. byIstvan Kecskes and Jesus Romero-Trillo, 7–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 “Thinking globally, acting locally: Mainstream supremacist concepts within a local socio-historical context.” Journal of Aggression Language and Conflict5 (2): 178–204. 10.1075/jlac.5.2.02bai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.2.02bai [Google Scholar]
  6. 2019 “Le discours de haine dissimulée: le mépris pour humilier.” Déviance et société3 (43): 359–387. 10.3917/ds.433.0359
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ds.433.0359 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baider, Fabienne, and Monika Kopytowska
    2017 “Conceptualising the Other: Online Discourses on the Current Refugee Crisis in Cyprus and in Poland.” Łódź Papers in Pragmatics13 (2): 203–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Braddock, Kurth, and John Horgan
    2015 “Towards a Guide for Constructing and Disseminating Counter-narratives to Reduce Support for Terrorism.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism39 (5): 381–404. 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1116277
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1116277 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braddock, Kurth, and James Price Dillard
    2016 “Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.” Communication Monographs83 (4): 446–467, doi:  10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brewer, Marilynn
    1999 “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues553: 429–444. 10.1111/0022‑4537.00126
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Alexander
    2015Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315714899
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech?” Ethnicities18 (3): 297–326. 10.1177/1468796817709846
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796817709846 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chakraborti, Neil
    2015 “Re-thinking Hate Crime: Fresh Challenges for Policy and Practice.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence30 (10): 1738–1754. 10.1177/0886260514548581
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514548581 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng, Justin, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec
    2017 “Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions.” InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1217–1230. New York: ACM. doi:  10.1145/2998181.2998213
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998213 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chiluwa, Innocent
    2015 “Radicalist Discourse: A Study of the Stances of Nigeria’s Boko Haram and Somalia’s Al Shabaab on Twitter.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses10 (2): 214–235. 10.1080/17447143.2015.1041964
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1041964 [Google Scholar]
  16. Citron, Danielle Keats
    2014Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674735613
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674735613 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen-Almagor, Raphael
    2015Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side: Moral and Social Responsibility on the Free Highway. New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316226391
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226391 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Why confronting the Internet’s dark side?” Philosophia45: 919–929. 10.1007/s11406‑015‑9658‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-015-9658-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Colomb, Gregory C., and Joyce A. Simutis
    1996 “Visible Conversation and Academic Inquiry: CMC in a Cultural Diverse Classroom.” InComputer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. bySuzan C. Herring, 203–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Council of the European Union
    Council of the European Union 2008 Council framework decision 2008/913/jha of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32008F0913
  21. De Smedt, Tom, Guy De Pauw, and Pieter Van Ostaeyen
    2018 “Automatic Detection of Online Jihadist Hate Speech.” CLiPS Technical Report Series7: 1–31. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1803/1803.04596.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dubrovsky, Vitaly J., Sara Kiesler, and Beheruz N. Sethna
    1991 “The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-mediated and Face-to-face Decision Making Groups.” Human-Computer Interaction6 (2): 119–146. 10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ess, Charles, and Fay Sudweeks
    2006 “Culture and Computer-mediated Communication: Toward New Understandings.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11: 179–191. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2006.tb00309.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00309.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Gadd, David
    2009 “Aggravating Racism and Elusive Motivation.” British Journal of Criminology49: 755–771. 10.1093/bjc/azp046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp046 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gagliardone, Iginio, Alisha Patel, and Matti Pohjonen
    2014Mapping and Analysing Hate Speech Online. doi:  10.2139/ssrn.2601792
    https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2601792 [Google Scholar]
  26. Garland, Jon
    2010 “Victimization of Goths and the Boundaries of Hate Crime.” InFrom Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions, ed. byNeil Chakraborti, 40–57. London: Willan Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Garland, Jon, and Neil Chakraborti
    2012 “Divided by a common concept? Assessing the implications of different conceptualizations of hate crime in the European Union.” European Journal of Criminology9 (1): 38–51. 10.1177/1477370811421645
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811421645 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fein, Helen
    1979Accounting for Genocide. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1993Genocide: A Sociological Perspective. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fortuna, Paula
    2017 “Automatic Detection of Hate Speech in Text: An Overview of the Topic and Dataset Annotation with Hierarchical Classes.” Master’s thesis, University of Porto. https://sigarra.up.pt/flup/en/pub_geral.show_file?pi_gdoc_id=990883
  31. Hansen, Miriam, Sabine Fabriz, and Sebastian Stehle
    2015 “Cultural Cues in Students’ Computer-mediated Communication: Influences on E-mail Style, Perception of the Sender, and Willingness to help.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20: 278–294. 10.1111/jcc4.12110
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12110 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hansen, Miriam, and Regina Jucks
    2014 “Computer-mediated Communication in Psychology Teaching: Influence of Culture on E-mail Content and on Appraisal.” Psychology Learning and Teaching13: 218–232. 10.2304/plat.2014.13.3.218
    https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2014.13.3.218 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hardacker, Claire
    2010 “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research6 (2): 215–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab
    2002 “Searching for Safety Online: Managing ‘Trolling’ in a Feminist Forum.” Information Society185: 371–384. 10.1080/01972240290108186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108186 [Google Scholar]
  35. Iganski, Paul
    2018Hate Crime. The Need to Strengthen ‘Civil Courage.’ Belfast: NIACRO.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jane, Emma A.
    2014 “‘Your a Ugly, Whorish, Slut’: Understanding E-bile.” Feminist Media Studies144: 531–546. 10.1080/14680777.2012.741073
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.741073 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kakava, Christina
    2001 “Language and Conflict.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 650–670. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kiesler, Sara, Jane Seigel, and Timothy McGuire
    1984 “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication.” American Psychologist39 (10): 1123–1134. 10.1037/0003‑066X.39.10.1123
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kiesler, Sara, David Zubrow, Anne Marie Moses, and Valerie Geller
    1985 “Affect in Computer-mediated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion.” Human Computer Interaction1: 77–104. 10.1207/s15327051hci0101_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0101_3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langton, Rae
    2018 “The Authority of Hate Speech.” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, 3, ed. byJohn Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter, 123–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lawrence, Frederick M.
    1999Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lea, Martin, Tim O’Shea, Pat Fung, and Russell Spears
    1992 “Flaming in Computer-mediated Communication: Observations, Explanations, Implications.” InContexts of Computer Mediated Communication, ed. byMartin Lea, 89–112. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lea, Martin, Russell Spears, and Daphne De Groot
    2001 “Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups.” Personality and Social Psychology Behavior27 (5): 526–537. 10.1177/0146167201275002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Leets, Laura
    2002 “Experiencing Hate Speech: Perceptions and Responses to Anti-semitism and Antigay Speech.” Journal of Social Issues58 (2): 341–361. 10.1111/1540‑4560.00264
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00264 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
    2017 “Incivility and Confrontation in Online Conflict Discourses”. Łódź Papers in Pragmatics13 (2): 347–363. 10.1515/lpp‑2017‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0017 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lillian, Donna
    2007 “A Thorn by any Other Name: Sexist Discourse as Hate Speech.” Discourse and Society186: 719–740. 10.1177/0957926507082193
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507082193 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ludz, Peter C.
    1976 “Alienation as a Concept in the Social Sciences.” InTheories of Alienation, ed. byR. Felix Geyer and David R. Schweitzer, 3–37. Leiden: H.E. Stenfert Kroese. 10.1007/978‑1‑4684‑8813‑5_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8813-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  48. Matsuda, Mari
    1989 “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story.” Michigan Law Review87 (8): 2320–2381. 10.2307/1289306
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1289306 [Google Scholar]
  49. Marmor, Andrei
    2008 “The Pragmatics of Legal Language. ” Ratio Juris21 (4): 423–452. 10.1111/j.1467‑9337.2008.00400.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00400.x [Google Scholar]
  50. McGowan, Mary-Kate
    2009 “Oppressive Speech.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy87 (3): 389–407. 10.1080/00048400802370334
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00048400802370334 [Google Scholar]
  51. McCormick, Naomi B., and John W. McCormick
    1992 “Computer Friends and Foes: Content of Undergraduates’ Electronic Mail”. Computers in Human Behavior8: 379–405. 10.1016/0747‑5632(92)90031‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(92)90031-9 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mukimbiri, Jean
    2005 “The Seven Stages of the Rwandan Genocide.” Journal of International Criminal Justice3: 823–836. 10.1093/jicj/mqi070
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqi070 [Google Scholar]
  53. Musolff, Andreas
    2007 “Which Role do Metaphors Play in Racial Prejudice? The function of anti-Semitic imagery in Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.’” Patterns of Prejudice41 (1): 21–44. 10.1080/00313220601118744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220601118744 [Google Scholar]
  54. Olsen, Frances
    2018 “Pragmatic Interpretation by Judges: Constrained Performatives and the Deployment of Gender Bias.” InThe Pragmatic Turn in Law, ed. byJanet Giltrow and Dieter Stein, 205–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. O’Sullivan, Patrick, and Andrew J. Flanagin
    2003 “Reconceptualizing ‘Flaming’ and Other Problematic Messages.” New Media and Society51: 69–94. 10.1177/1461444803005001908
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005001908 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pohjonen, Matti and Sahana Udupa
    2017 “Extreme Speech Online: An Anthropological Critique of Hate Speech Debates.” International Journal of Communication11: 1173–1191.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Postmes, Tom, Russel Spears, and Martin Lea
    2000 “The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-mediated Communication.” Human Communication Research26 (3): 341–371. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2000.tb00761.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Richardson-Self, Louise
    2018 “Woman-hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate speech.” Hypatia33 (2): 256–272. 10.1111/hypa.12398
    https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12398 [Google Scholar]
  59. Roulstone, Alan, Pam Thomas, and Susie Balderston
    2011 “Between hate and vulnerability: Unpacking the British criminal justice system’s construction of disablist hate crime.” Disability and Society26(3): 351–364. 10.1080/09687599.2011.560418
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.560418 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sbisà, Marina
    2001 “Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 1791–1814. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schabas, William
    2000 “Hate Speech in Rwanda: The Road to Genocide.” McGill Law Journal46: 141–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Schmidt, Anna, and Michael Wiegand
    2017 “A Survey on Hate Speech Detection using Natural Language Processing.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media, 1–10, doi:  10.18653/v1/W17‑1101
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-1101 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sinclair, M. B. W.
    1985 “Law and Language: The Role of Pragmatics in Statutory Interpretation.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review46: 373–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Thompsen, Philip A.
    1996 “What’s Fueling the Flames in Cyberspace: A Social Influence Model.” InCommunication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, ed. byLance Strate, Ronald Jacobson, and Stephanie B. Gibson, 297–315. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Timmermann, Wibke
    2008 “Counteracting Hate Speech as a Way of Preventing Genocidal Violence.” Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal3 (3), Article 8. scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol3/iss3/8. 10.3138/gsp.3.3.353
    https://doi.org/10.3138/gsp.3.3.353 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tsesis, Alexander
    2002Destructive Messages: How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013 “Inflammatory Speech: Offense Versus Incitement.” Minnesota Law Review97: 101–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. van Dijk, Teun
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Waller, James E.
    2002Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Waldron, Jeremy
    2012The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086 [Google Scholar]
  71. Walther, Joseph B., Jeffery F. Anderson, and David W. Park
    1994 “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-mediated Communication: A Meta-analysis of Social and Antisocial communication.” Communication Research214: 460–487. 10.1177/009365094021004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004002 [Google Scholar]
  72. Warner, William, and Julia Hirschberg
    2012 “Detecting Hate Speech on the World Wide Web.” InLSM’12: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media, 19–26. Stroudsburg, Penn.: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Weisburd, Steven Bennett, and Brian Levin
    1994 “On the Basis of Sex, Recognizing Gender Based Bias Crimes.” Stanford Law and Policy Review7 (2): 21–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1999Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Yus, Francisco
    2011Cyberpragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang, Ziqi, David Robinson, and Jonathan Tepper
    2018 “Detecting Hate Speech on Twitter Using a Convolution-GRU Based Deep Neural Network.” InESWC 2018: The Semantic Web, ed. byAldo Gangemi, Roberto Navigli, Maria-Esther Vidal, Pascal Hitzler, Raphaël Troncy, Laura Hollink, Anna Tordai, and Mehwish Alam, 745–760. Cham: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑93417‑4_48
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_48 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error