Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Against Online Hate Speech

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social NetworkingVol. 26, No. 7 Special Issue: Predictors, Consequences, and Prevention of Hate Speech and Fake News Involvement Across the LifespanFree AccessPutting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Against Online Hate SpeechBrenda K. WiederholdBrenda K. WiederholdBrenda K. Wiederhold, Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:17 Jul 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.29283.editorialAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail There is a common object lesson that involves handing a young student a tube of toothpaste and instructing them to squeeze out all of the contents until the package is empty. The student is then asked to put the toothpaste back. Of course, this is an impossible task, meant to illustrate that it is just as difficult to take words back after they have been spoken as it is to put toothpaste back in the tube.Historically, this was a typical lesson for children or teens to prevent bullying on the playground, encouraging one to think (and hopefully decide to be kind) before speaking. But what about the digital playground? Perhaps this can be a good lesson for all of us, especially in a world where our words can be recorded and posted online and, once digital, will likely exist forever.In such a world, it is imperative to consider the messages that are dispersed online. It is no longer about bullying at just one school or hate expressed behind closed doors at one private meeting—although those situations are certainly concerning. With the advent of the Internet, these small groups are able to spread their angry messages far and wide. The digital world has made bullying and hate speech global.Is It Hate Speech?The United Nations defines hate speech as “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.”1 In other words, any expression that incites violence and intolerance toward a person or group of people based on factors, including religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, or other identity factor, can be considered hate speech. International law, along with many federal and local legal systems, prohibits this type of speech on the grounds that it undermines safety, public health, and human rights and incites patterns of violence and intolerance.While many legal systems support freedom of expression, even the most liberal of societal structures requires certain restrictions of this freedom. Research suggests that apart from people of color, women and sexual minorities are most likely to be the victims of hate speech.2 When public discourse is weaponized against already vulnerable groups, when incendiary rhetoric stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, or anyone seen as “other,” there needs to be some sort of systemic intervention. In instances when silence can imply indifference, or even agreement, we are called upon to act.What About Online?As global communication becomes increasingly digital, concerns around hate speech have only increased. Digital technologies are now the most common tools for spreading divisive rhetoric, threatening peace around the world. The scale and impact of hate speech is magnified online due to the sheer speed and reach of the Internet. Online, people aiming to spread hate speech can not only more easily find an audience, increasing the influence of their message, but also remain hidden, inciting violence from a safe distance. It can be argued that the anonymity and ubiquity of technology has created a hostile environment online—one in which hate speech is more difficult to identify and eliminate.Historically, one can track changes in hate tactics as they mirrored the advancement of technology. In the 1990s, hate groups were early adopters of (chain) emails, mailing lists, electronic discussion groups, and bulletin boards.3 As time passed, these messages spread to websites, then blogs, and now social media platforms and online games, with gamers exchanging hateful words in real time as they kill each other on the virtual battlefield.With technology, hate speech has also grown more insidious. While in the early days, websites run by hate groups featured overt displays of inflammatory speech, efforts to shut these sites down have inspired more subtle and manipulative tactics. Search engine optimization offers these groups the opportunity to optimize their language so that biased websites are ranked among the top results for a given topic.3 The same research indicates that extremist groups often exploit media savvy to lure in naïve web users, using humor, emotional appeals, and disinformation to attract and indoctrinate new followers. Cloaked websites, pages that masquerade as providing impartial or factual information, are also a common method to spread discriminatory messages to unsuspecting users. Although communication technology may be the great equalizer in that it increases access to information, it has also become fertile ground for the proliferation of hate speech and extremism.The FalloutAlthough hate speech has become more potent and influential in the digital world, concerns about its impact on individuals and society remain consistent; hate speech, in any context, affects individuals' well-being and weakens social cohesion. On an individual level, studies reveal that victims of online hate speech may experience low self-esteem, feel lonely, and even suffer from sleeping disorders, increased anxiety, and feelings of fear and insecurity.3 Hate speech and crimes can also impact the broader society, with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination eroding positive relationships between members of a community, leading to isolation and violence between individuals, groups, and even nations.4 Hate is a systemic and cyclical issue. Most perpetrators believe that life is somehow unfair, and victims of hate crime are more likely to become perpetrators themselves. Hate, if left unchecked, can create trauma for individuals and society at large, perpetuating the cycle of hate and hurt.What Can We Do?Everyone, from the highest government official to the youngest child, can play a role in interrupting this cycle. First, it is crucial to note that eliminating hate speech does not mean limiting freedom of speech. We can counter hate holistically while respecting free expression by addressing the root causes of hate speech. At the individual level, we can educate people about the impact of hate speech on victims and communities, promoting mutual awareness, tolerance, and respect for all.Governments and organizations can improve existing laws and initiatives that regulate and monitor online hate speech by proactively identifying and observing the evolution of technology and digital hate speech. In addition, social media platforms and sites should continually revise their policies and community guidelines to allow them to recognize and remove hate speech quickly and efficiently. Mental health practitioners also have an important role to play in both preventing and supporting victims of hate speech. While hate speech and crime are not necessarily symptoms of underlying mental health disorders, it is imperative to understand the underlying (socio)psychological dynamics and rationale that may precipitate these acts.4 Because our role is to help people in need, trauma-related work with both victims and perpetrators, their families, and community groups is vital.In the end, everyone has a responsibility to prevent and destroy hate speech: governments, societies, the private sector, and individuals. It will take more speech, not less, to address the issue. We must be active digital citizens, standing up to hate speech, creating the inclusive digital civilization we all deserve.References1. United Nations. (2019) United Nations strategy and plan of action on hate speech. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/advising-and-mobilizing/Action_plan_on_hate_speech_EN.pdf (accessed May 28, 2023). Google Scholar2. Marwick AE, Miller RW. (2014) Online harassment, defamation, and hateful speech: a primer of the legal landscape. Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy Report. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=clip (accessed May 28, 2023). Google Scholar3. SELMA. (2019) Hacking online hate: building an evidence base for educators. www.hackinghate.eu (accessed May 28, 2023). Google Scholar4. Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN). The “how” and “why” of hate crime and the implications for mental health practitioners. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/ran_mh_how_why_of_hate_crime_implications_for_mh_05-06122022_en.pdf (accessed May 28, 2023). Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 26Issue 7Jul 2023 InformationCopyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Brenda K. Wiederhold.Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Against Online Hate Speech.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.Jul 2023.458-459.http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.29283.editorialPublished in Volume: 26 Issue 7: July 17, 2023Online Ahead of Print:June 13, 2023PDF download