## Freedom of expression or censorship of antisemitic hate speech?

Editorial and audience perspectives on comment moderation in far-right alternative media

## BIRGITTE P. HAANSHUUS

The Norwegian Centre for Holocaust and Minority Studies

## Abstract

Taking the dilemma between freedom of expression and censorship of antisemitic hate speech as a point of departure, this article explores how three prominent and controversial Norwegian far-right alternative media perceive and perform comment moderation  and  how  editorial  and  audience  perspectives  on  the issue correspond. Based on a critical discourse analysis of interviews with  key  staff  members  and  a  strategic  selection  of  comment sections,  the  article  demonstrates  how  both  moderators  and debaters understand the boundaries between  legitimate and illegitimate  expressions  and  how  transgressive  content  should  be dealt  with.  The  article  argues  that  when  it  comes  to  regulating comment  sections,  these  oppositional  media  actors  are  not  so alternative after all. The study illustrates how comment moderation is crucial for all actors who seek to obtain or protect their legitimacy, regardless of their (counter-) position in the public sphere. While there  is  widespread  agreement  on  antisemitic  hate  speech  as illegitimate,  there  is,  however,  more  tolerance  for  generalising statements about Muslims and immigrants, which underpins these actors' antagonism towards these groups.

## KEYWORDS

far right, alternative media, comment moderation, online comments, editorial control, audience participation, hate speech, antisemitism, freedom of expression, anti-Muslim prejudice

## Introduction

Over  the  last  few  decades,  the  far  right  has  undergone  an ideological  development  in  which  freedom  of  expression  and opposition  to  antisemitism  have  emerged  as  two  crucial  but conflicting values. The starting point for this study is an observation of an ongoing debate across the three most prominent alternative media in Norway, which, in addition to being controversial actors, can be characterised as 'anti-Islamic' and part of the transnational far-right  political  landscape  (Berntzen,  2020).  All  three  sites  have published  editorials  condemning  antisemitism,  arguing  that  it  is illegitimate and harmful. However, this does not mean anti-Jewish expressions have been eradicated, nor is there agreement on how to deal with such views. In 2018, the editor-in-chief of Resett discussed the dilemma between advocating for unlimited freedom of expression and censorship of antisemitic hate speech, arguing that 'the principle of an open comment section' is more important. He further encouraged debaters to 'take extra good care of the Jews in Norway'  and  to  contribute  to  constructive  discussions  without making antisemitic remarks since the Jewish minority is threatened from  many  sides  (Lurås,  2018).  Shortly  after, Rights.no harshly criticised Resett for lack of moderation and for allowing 'grotesque Jew-hatred'  and  support  for  Nazism  in  their  comment  sections (Storhaug, 2018). In 2019, Document also criticised Resett for giving a platform to people promoting antisemitism and Holocaust denial, both online and at a public debate meeting, arguing that antisemites have the same view on free speech as Islamists (Rustad, 2019).

With this debate as a backdrop, the present article explores the arguments  used  and  the  tensions  that  arise  when  the  dilemma between defending freedom of expression and denouncing antisemitism  is  dealt  with  by  editorial  staff  and  discussed  by audience  members  in  the  comment  sections  of  these  alternative media.  This  is  of  importance  because,  in  addition  to  informing discussions on where and how antisemitic hate speech is expressed in a fragmented and digital public sphere, this case can illuminate how alternative media, which by definition 'represent a proclaimed and/or (self-) perceived corrective' to the public discourse and the dominant mainstream media (Holt et al., 2019, p. 862), perceive and perform comment moderation in general. While many studies have demonstrated  why  and  how  mainstream  media  handle  their comment  sections  (e.g.  Ihlebæk  &  Krumsvik,  2015;  Singer  et  al., 2011), less attention has been paid to how this unfolds in alternative media. Examining whether, why and how new media actors control the debates they facilitate is essential for understanding the wider dynamics of the digital public sphere. Given their stated editorial position  on  antisemitism,  the  alternative  media  investigated  can function as gatekeepers who can prevent this specific type of hate speech.

Far-right alternative media represent an interesting case because compared to the mainstream media they criticise, they presumably have different understandings of where the boundaries between the acceptable  and  the  unacceptable  should  be  set.  Of  particular interest is that these sites may attract highly diverse audiences, from mainstream and immigration-critical to extremist voices. Since the dilemma in question has sparked debates among readers, this case can also provide valuable insights into the relationship between the editorial line of such media and their audiences. While studies of editorial control in mainstream media have shown how moderators and participants in such online debates have different expectations of  how  moderation  should  be  carried  out  (Løvlie  et  al.,  2018; Robinson,  2010),  research  on  audience  participation  in  far-right alternative  media  is  scarce  (Holt,  2020).  Taking  the  dilemma between freedom of expression and censorship of antisemitism as a point  of  departure,  this  article  contributes  to  this  literature  by posing the following research questions:

1. How does far-right alternative media perceive and perform comment moderation?
2. How do audience perspectives correspond with editorial views?

The overall aim is to contribute with knowledge on the different positions and arguments used about comment moderation of hate speech across and within alternative media, which in recent years have  influenced  the  digital  public  sphere  (Holt,  2020;  Ihlebæk  & Nygaard,  2021).  Of  particular  interest  is  whether  the  arguments reflect interventionist or non-interventionist approaches to comment  moderation  (Ihlebæk  et  al.,  2013;  Løvlie  et  al.,  2018). Based on a critical discourse analysis of interviews with key editorial staff members and a selection of comment sections that address the dilemma  outlined  above,  the  article  demonstrates  how  both facilitators  of  and  participants  in  the  comment  sections  in  these alternative  media  understand  the  boundaries  between  legitimate and illegitimate expressions, how transgressive content should be dealt  with,  and  the  risks  associated  with  specific  approaches  to comment  moderation.  The  article  argues  that  when  it  comes  to regulating comment sections, these oppositional media actors are not so alternative after all, as the findings illustrate how comment moderation is crucial for all actors who seek to obtain or protect their legitimacy, regardless of their (counter-) position in the public sphere.  However,  while  there  is  widespread  agreement  on  the illegitimacy of antisemitic hate speech, there is more tolerance for negative generalising statements about Muslims and immigrants, which underpins their antagonism towards these groups.

## The far right's liberal turn and changed views on Jews

The far right is an umbrella term for a variety of political actors, which main common  denominator  is that they promote a worldview  based  on  nativism,  the  idea  that  states  should  be populated by the native in-group and that alien out-groups pose a threat  to  the  homogenous  nation  state  (Mudde,  2007).  While  the extreme right is profoundly anti-democratic and may support or use violence, the radical right operates within a democratic framework but opposes  key  liberal democratic  values, such  as political pluralism and minority rights. Another but also partly overlapping distinction can be made between those who see Jews as the main threat  and  those  who  are  antagonistic  to  Islam  and  Muslims. However, the boundaries between ideological camps can be fluid, particularly on digital platforms where different audiences meet.

Considering that far-right ideology historically has been characterised  by  authoritarianism,  it  may  seem  paradoxical  that large  parts  of  the  far  right  in  Western  Europe  have  taken  an ostensibly liberal turn over the last few decades. This is linked to what  Berntzen  (2020,  p.  1)  labelled  'the  anti-Islamic  turn  and expansion of the far right', in which there has been an ideological transformation where race has been replaced by culture ; Jews have been  replaced  by  Muslims  as  the  predominant  enemy,  and authoritarianism has been replaced by a 'semi-liberal equilibrium', referring to how far-right actors have adopted liberal positions on many  issues  -  such  as  gender  equality  and  LGBTQ  rights  -  to denounce Islam (Berntzen, 2020). As part of this liberal discourse, far-right  actors  portray  themselves  as  the  true  defenders  of  free speech  in  a  world  where  this  profound  democratic  freedom  is threatened by 'the elite', the political left, and political correctness (e.g.  Figenschou  &  Ihlebæk,  2019;  Moffitt,  2017).  Studies  have demonstrated how the Muhammad cartoon controversy (Yılmaz, 2011) and the terrorist attack targeting satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Castelli Gattinara, 2017) functioned as key events used by far-right actors to highlight freedom of expression as a fundamental Western value that is incompatible with Islam. A main argument is that freedom of expression should be as broad as possible - or even absolute (Moffitt, 2017).

Another feature of this ideological development is the changed view  of  Jews.  Historically,  hostility  towards  Jews  has  been  a  core feature of far-right ideology. Now, however, it is primarily neo-Nazis who promote antisemitic ideas - most notably conspiracies about Jewish  power  and  Holocaust  denial  (e.g.  Haanshuus  &  Ihlebæk, 2021). Following the discredit of antisemitism in the public sphere after  the  Holocaust,  other  far-right  actors  have  largely  distanced themselves  from  Nazism  and  antisemitism  to  reach  a  wider audience  (Jackson  &  Feldman,  2014).  Some  even  embrace  the Jewish minority, support Israel, and have adopted a critical position towards antisemitism. This 'anti-antisemitism' may serve as a way of distancing themselves from Nazism, as well as fending off Muslim immigration, which is claimed to be threatening the security of the Jewish population (Kahmann, 2017). Moreover, support for Israel, Jews and Judaism is often linked to a worldview in which JudeoChristian values are exalted and equated with Western values that are in conflict with Islam and Muslims (Berntzen, 2020; Kahmann, 2017). Although one can argue that the change in far-right views on Jews  is  strategic,  it  may  also  be  a  result  of  genuine  ideological differences since the far right is not one unified bloc. The aim here is not to determine the motivations behind this change but rather to scrutinise how an anti-antisemitic editorial position affects how farright alternative media perceive and perform comment moderation, as  well  as  the  arguments  used  for  and  against  censorship  of antisemitism among their audiences, who may or may not share their views.

## Audience participation and comment moderation in mainstream and alternative media

Comment sections provide an increased opportunity for citizens to engage in public discussions (Ihlebæk & Krumsvik, 2015) and for interactivity between news producers and their audiences (Larsson, 2011).  Facilitation  of  online  debates  has,  from  early  on,  been motivated by democratic ideals about deliberative participation and by  financial  incentives  (Reich,  2011;  Ruiz  et  al.,  2011).  While concerns for hate speech and harmful content have led many news organisations to strictly regulate or remove their comment sections, they  are  still  offered  by  alternative  media,  but  research  on  the moderation policies and practices of such actors is limited.

Studies  on  mainstream  media  have  demonstrated  that  the motivations  behind  comment  moderation  may  vary.  As  a  way  of facilitating democratic discussions, conducting content moderation  may  be  a  moral  duty.  Depending  on  a  country's legislation, preventing hate may also be a legal obligation (Ihlebæk & Krumsvik, 2015; Singer et al., 2011). Considering how incivility and hate speech can damage the credibility and commercial interests of actors who facilitate online discussions, handling such content may also be strategically important (Anderson et al., 2016; Reich, 2011). Since alternative media are in opposition to mainstream media, it is not  obvious  whether  these  actors  feel  the  same  responsibility towards  dealing  with  hate  speech.  When  it  comes  to  far-right alternative media specifically, research has demonstrated that they criticise  the  established  press  for  being  biased,  elitist,  leftist  and politically correct (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019).

When  analysing how media actors perceive and perform comment moderation, it is useful to distinguish between interventionist  and  non-interventionist  strategies  (Ihlebæk  et  al., 2013). While an interventionist approach indicates a high level of editorial control and may involve identification requirements and active regulation of content, a non-interventionist approach implies that  the  media  in  question  perform  as  little  editorial  control  as possible,  based  on  the  ideal  of  comment  sections  as  a  free marketplace of ideas (Løvlie et al., 2018). How these strategies play out in practice is context-dependent, and they should be seen as opposite  ends  of  a  continuum  rather  than  two  fixed  positions. Studies  on  comment  moderation  by  mainstream  media  have demonstrated  how  moderation  practices  are  often  based  on guidelines  that  determine  what  type  of  content  is  unwanted  and how it should be handled (Ihlebæk & Krumsvik, 2015; Reich, 2011). A key question for all moderators is where boundaries between the acceptable and unacceptable should be set. Where the boundaries are drawn is likely to vary, depending on the position of the media actors  in  the  public  sphere  and  what  they  consider  uncivil  and harmful.

The  participating  audience  may  also  have  different  views  on where boundaries should be drawn. While the audience of alternative media comprises user groups with different motivations (Schwarzenegger, 2021) who may engage in varying ways (Larsson, 2011), the focus here is on active participants who write comments. Studies on participation and editorial control in mainstream media have highlighted a certain tension between media professionals and audiences  concerning  questions  about  the  deliberative  value, quality and degree of openness in participatory services (Bergström &  Wadbring,  2015;  Ihlebæk  &  Krumsvik,  2015;  Robinson,  2010). Although comment moderation is seen as valuable and necessary by many, a study by Løvlie, Ihlebæk and Larsson (2018) showed that commenters  who  have  been  moderated  are  critical  of  comment moderation,  which  may  be  due  to  lack  of  transparency  in  the moderation process or that those with non-interventionist attitudes also have a tendency towards discussing controversial topics with a confrontational  style,  lack  of  digital  literacy  or  understanding  of editorial policies.

When it comes to audiences of far-right alternative media, studies have indicated that users are motivated by scepticism and mistrust of mainstream media, particularly regarding news coverage about immigration  and  Islam  (Noppari  et  al.,  2019;  Thorbjørnsrud  & Figenschou, 2020). Given that the audience of such media believes that  the  issues  that  occupy  them  are  silenced  in  public,  it  is  not unreasonable to assume that many will support a noninterventionist  approach  to  moderation.  Moreover,  considering how far-right actors are strong defenders of free speech, comment moderation may be seen as a threat to this freedom.

## Data and method

The cases investigated are the three most-read alternative media in  Norway,  regardless  of  political  leaning: Resett , Document and Rights.no (see Table 1 for an overview of sites and key characteristics). Although the backgrounds for their establishment are different, the sites can be characterised as alternative media due to  their  self-ascribed  oppositional  role  in  the  media  landscape (Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021). Ideologically, they are similar, focusing particularly on the negative aspects of immigration and Islam. All three  sites  have  published  editorials  that  condemn  antisemitism. Within  media  studies,  these  types  of  actors  have  been  labelled 'right-wing' or 'immigration critical' alternative media (Holt, 2020; Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021) or 'right-wing digital news' (Heft et al., 2020). Within political sociology, however, such actors are considered  to  be  part  of  the  far  right  due  to  their  support  for nativism and exclusionary views on Islam and Muslims (Berntzen, 2020). Although they might oppose the 'far right' label, it is more precise  and  essential  for  this  study  to  place  them  within  this ideological landscape.

Table 1: Overview of sites and key characteristics

<!-- image -->

| Site                             | Established                        |   Weekly readership (%) 1 | Commenting rules                                                                                                                                                                                                               | Log-in required for commenting   |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Document                         | 2003 - as a blog                   |                         7 | 'We do not accept statements that are obviously spam, obscene, racist or that in other ways are a violation of Norwegian law or a minimum of common decency.'                                                                  | Yes                              |
| Resett                           | 2017 - as an alternative news site |                         8 | 'Dehumanisation, personal attacks, incitement, threats and incitement to violence, war rhetoric, spamming, trolling, complaints about moderation and derailment of the debate are not allowed. Normal courtesy is encouraged.' | Yes                              |
| Rights.no (Human Rights Service) | 2001 - as a think tank             |                         5 | 'When commenting, you accept our debate rules. Weexpect a serious debate without personal attacks. HRS reserves the right to moderate and remove inappropriate comments.'                                                      | Yes                              |

In  the  Norwegian  context,  the  media  actors  examined  are considered to be controversial and have been the subject of much debate, including how they portray immigrants and Muslims and the  lack  of  regulation  in  their  comment  sections  (Ihlebæk  & Figenschou, 2022; Nygaard, 2020). 2 Concerning regulatory frameworks, it is worth mentioning the Norwegian Media Liability Act, which applies to all media that regularly produce and publish news,  debates  or  other  content  of  public  interest.  It  states  that editors may be held responsible for illegal user-generated content (e.g. threats and hate speech), and if the media has rules for usergenerated content, they must provide information about the rules and how they are enforced. The commenting rules of the alternative media under study are presented above (see Table 1). Also relevant is  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  the  Norwegian  Press,  which  is  a  selfregulatory  framework  that  is  supervised  by  the  Norwegian  Press Council  (PFU)  and  applies  to  members  of  the  Association  of Norwegian Editors. Since the editor of Document became a member in 2018, they must act accordingly, which implies responsibility for removing user-generated content that is not in compliance with the ethical code. 3 Resett and Rights.no also claim to follow the Code of Ethics, although they are not formally members of this system.

In the analysis, the aim was to identify the different positions and arguments about comment moderation. To include both editorial and audience perspectives, this study is based on two types of data. First, semi-structured interviews with representatives of the alternative media, including editors and main moderators (N = 5, see Table 2 for an overview). 4 Although the number of interviewees is  small,  they are considered key informants, as they are the only ones in the Norwegian context who can provide information - from an  editorial  perspective  -  on  how  this  type  of  alternative  media perceives and performs comment moderation. The informants were asked about their perceptions of antisemitism in Norway, how they deal with antisemitism in their comment sections, their moderation policies and practices in general and how they perceive freedom of expression in this context. Although the focus was on moderating antisemitic  hate  speech  specifically,  it  was  also  an  ambition  to examine  perspectives  on  comment  moderation  more  generally. Second, the empirical material includes a strategic selection of one comment  section  from  each  site  that  addresses  the  dilemma  of interest. The selected comment sections contain the reactions to the editorials mentioned in the introduction, which have been published on each site. These comments (N = 561) represent the views of active audiences across the sites, which can give insight into whether and how audience perspectives correspond with editorial views. The comments were collected on 10 and 12 May 2021, prior to the interviews, which were conducted in June and July 2021. 5

Table 2: Overview of informants

| Alternative media site   | Position of the informant   | Interview conducted by   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
| Document                 | Chief editor                | Video call               |
| Resett                   | Chief editor                | Video call               |
| Resett                   | Head of moderators          | Video call               |
| Rights.no                | Information manager         | Video call               |
| Rights.no                | Main moderator              | E-mail                   |

Analytically,  this  study  was  inspired  by  the  discourse-historical approach  (DHA),  a  variant  of  critical  discourse  analysis  that  is interdisciplinary, problem-oriented and context-oriented and has a special focus on the historical embedding and change of language (Reisigl  &  Wodak,  2016).  The  DHA  was  developed  to  analyse  the emergence of antisemitism in public discourses in post-war Austria but  is  now  used  to  analyse  ideology,  power  and  discriminatory language  of  all  kinds.  Of  particular  relevance  here  is  the  text  or discourse immanent critique, a specific aspect of the DHA that aims to  discover  inconsistencies,  (self)-contradictions,  paradoxes  and dilemmas in text or discourse. As a first step, the analytical questions proposed by Reisigl and Wodak (2016, p. 32) were adjusted and used to conduct an exploratory close reading of the transcribed interviews and the selected comment sections:

- § How are freedom of expression and antisemitism referred to separately and in relation to each other?
- § What characteristics are attributed to freedom of expression and (censorship of) antisemitism, respectively?
- § What arguments are employed?
- § From what perspective are the arguments expressed?
- § Are the statements articulated explicitly or implicitly?

The  questions  served  as  guidelines  to  identify  the  different positions  and  arguments  used  regarding  the  dilemma  between (absolute) freedom of expression and censorship of antisemitism.

Subsequently, the interviews and comment sections were coded using the NVivo software for qualitative research. For both types of data, the coding process was hermeneutic and recursive, and the categorisation of positions and arguments  was informed by previous research addressing the liberal turn of far-right ideology, perspectives  on  why  and  how  mainstream  media  organisations perform  comment  moderation  and  the  tensions  that  may  arise between facilitators and participants in online debates. The overall aim  was  to  disclose  whether  editorial  perspectives  and  audience perspectives, respectively, correspond with an interventionist or a non-interventionist approach to comment moderation and whether and how  the arguments  for and against  comment moderation comprise normative, strategic or legal considerations. Another  overall  aim  was  to  uncover  any  inconsistencies,  (self)contradictions  or  paradoxes  that  might  occur  when  dealing  with and discussing the dilemma in question, both within and across the alternative  media  and  between  their  editorial  policies  and  their audiences.

The examples of comments have been translated, cut and in some cases slightly adjusted by the author so the study is in accordance with  the  Norwegian  Personal  Data  Act  and  the  national  ethical guidelines for internet research.

## Perspectives on comment moderation in far-right alternative media

The  first  part  of  the  analysis  explores  how  far-right  alternative media perceive and perform comment moderation, based on the perspectives of editorial staff members. The second part examines how audience perspectives correspond with editorial views.

## Editorial perspectives: Consensus about interventionist strategies

Although  they  are  strong  advocates  of  freedom  of  expression, there is consensus among  the editorial staff that  comment moderation  is  necessary.  This  applies  to  antisemitic  hate  speech specifically but also to other  types  of  harmful  content.  The arguments for why comment moderation is important and details on how it is practised are presented below.

## The importance of comment moderation

In  general,  the  editorial  staff  of  the  alternative  media  perceive freedom of expression to be restricted - in Norwegian society and in the media system. A key aim is to contribute to a more open public debate,  particularly  regarding  topics  such  as  immigration  and Islam. When asked about the significance of comment sections, the arguments were similar across all three sites: they want to facilitate enlightening discussions and have a platform where many different voices  can  be  heard,  and  some  explicitly  referred  to  how  online debates have become  an essential part of democracy. The information manager of Rights.no stated that it is 'very important that people who feel powerless as citizens have arenas where they can  express  themselves'.  The  chief  editor  of Document criticised mainstream media for 'failing its task' by closing their comment sections. This illustrates how these actors consider the facilitation of online discussions a social responsibility that the established media do not take seriously enough.

Despite  concerns  about  limited  freedom  of  expression,  no editorial staff members argued that it should be absolute, at least not in the context of dealing with unwanted and harmful content such as antisemitism - in their comment sections. An overall finding is that the alternative media believe that they have a responsibility to conduct comment moderation, thus supporting interventionist strategies. The following quote from the main moderator of Resett illustrates this point: 'I very much protect freedom of speech. But we have no obligation to publish.' Reflecting on how the dilemma between  advocating  for  free  speech  and  conducting  moderation plays out on their platforms, she added, 'I might say that I do not exactly  protect  it  [free  speech]  in  our  comment  sections'.  The interviews  also  revealed  that  while Resett used  to  have  what  was described  by  the  editor-in-chief  as  a  'more  idealistic  approach', both  when  it  came  to  publishing  a  wide  range  of  opinions  and allowing 'as much as possible' in the comment sections 'as long as it  was  within  the  law',  in  August  2019  they  decided  to  regulate comment sections to a much greater extent. This illustrates a shift in Resett 's editorial line from a non-interventionist to an interventionist  approach.  As  discussed  in  more  detail  below,  this change probably reflects the need to protect their credibility. Also of relevance,  although  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  interviews,  is that Resett , around the time of this shift, had applied for membership  in  the  Association  of  Norwegian  Editors  and  was criticised for  their  lack  of  comment  moderation  (Ihlebæk  & Figenschou, 2022).

Echoing  studies  on  why  mainstream  media  perform  comment moderation, the arguments put forward by the representatives of the alternative media in question varied between normative, legal, and  strategic  considerations.  Those  who  argued  for  comment moderation as a moral obligation  emphasised  the  importance  of preventing  incivility  and  hate  in  society.  A  representative  from Rights.no stated that they 'do not want to be a place where people can  spread  hate  and  vulgarity',  and  for  them,  antisemitism  and racial  discrimination  'have  nothing  to  do  with  free  speech'.  The main  moderator  of Resett emphasised  that  they  have  a  great responsibility  to  help  'combat  the  Jew-hatred  that  has  arisen', which she claimed was especially salient in Muslim communities. Although no one saw this as a particular concern in the comment sections, the argument about Muslim antisemitism as a significant problem was also mentioned by other informants throughout the interviews, which demonstrates how discussions about antisemitism  substantiate  their  opposition  towards  Islam  and Muslims.

The editor-in-chief of Resett focused more on strategic reasons for conducting moderation. In addition to briefly mentioning a legal responsibility and consideration for targeted individuals, he argued that it is mainly about 'the reputation and image the public has of Resett '. Feedback from readers and the fact that people identify the comment  sections with their editorial line meant that the 'idealistic' approach to moderation was no longer sustainable. The chief editor emphasised how their idealistic approach and view on free speech had a negative impact on their readership and finances and  added,  'We  do  not  get  around  the  fact  that  the  comment sections must be handled'. The arguments put forward by the chief editor  of Document were  also  about  strategic  considerations.  He emphasised how they are 'bearing the costs'  when  people  write antisemitic or other types of harmful comments. As an example, he highlighted  how  'unpleasant'  it  was  when  it  became  publicly known  that  extreme-right  terrorist  Anders  Behring  Breivik  had posted  comments  on  their  site.  Moreover,  since  becoming  a member  of  professional  press  associations,  it  is  important  for Document to act in accordance with their ideals, which means that dealing  with  harmful  comments  is  necessary  (see  Ihlebæk  & Figenschou, 2022).

Overall, this shows that despite a previous tension between the alternative media, there is now editorial consensus concerning how they perceive comment moderation, as they all expressed support for interventionist strategies. The next section provides details on what  this  approach  entails  when  it  comes  to  moderation  of antisemitic  hate  speech  specifically,  as  well  as  other  types  of content.

## Policies and practices

Like mainstream media, the alternative media investigated have moderators who follow the comment sections closely to deal with unwanted  and  harmful  content.  Their  moderation  practices  are informed by guidelines that are similar across the sites. Examples of what was claimed to be unacceptable include threats, unreasonable personal attacks, harassment, spam, and racism and hate speech against groups. Speaking in more general terms, the editor-in-chief of Document stressed, 'We want people to think before they write and express themselves in a civilised language'. When asked about antisemitism in the comment sections, the interviewees acknowledged  that  it  may  occur,  albeit  to  varying  degrees,  and emphasised that it is unacceptable to promote antisemitic ideas on their platforms. The most common practice when someone breaks the  rules  is  to  not  approve  comments  for  publication  (on  the websites) or to hide or delete comments (on Facebook). If someone crosses the line several times, they may be blocked.

When asked whether it is difficult to know where the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate content should be drawn, the interviewees recognised this as a recurring challenge. When asked specifically about antisemitism in this context, the informants said that  it  is  not particularly  difficult  to  assess,  even  if  it  may  be characterised  by  coded  language  or  if  the  antisemitic  message appears  as  an  underlying  idea.  The  informants  expressed  no tolerance for any statements that may be perceived as antisemitic. Such statements may, for instance, be conspiratorial ideas about Jewish  power  or  someone  questioning  whether  the  Holocaust happened.  The  chief  editor  of Resett emphasised  that  since  they rejected their 'idealistic' approach, they now have 'zero tolerance' for  antisemitism.  The  chief  editor  of Document characterised antisemitism as 'sui generis', something so unique that there is no doubt  about  where  'the  red  line'  goes.  In  cases  of  doubt,  the interviewees stated that it is better to delete such comments than to let  them be. In sum, this indicates a relatively strict regulation of comment sections, particularly regarding statements that may be perceived as discriminatory or hostile towards Jews. It also shows how  these  actors  can  function  as  efficient  gatekeepers  who  may contribute to the prevention of antisemitism in the digital public sphere.

Probing into the question of difficult boundaries, the interviews further disclosed that the argumentation is different when it comes to comments about other minorities. Despite having guidelines that define  racism  and  hate  speech  against  (all)  specific  groups  as illegitimate, the editorial staff members expressed ambivalence and more  tolerance  regarding  generalisations  about  immigrants  and Muslims. To illustrate, the chief editor of Resett claimed, on the one hand, that they have become less tolerant when it comes to how Islam and Muslims are referred to in the comment sections, as it may  be  'difficult  to  distinguish  between  criticism  of  Islam  and criticism  of  Muslims'.  While  criticism  of  Islam  is  considered legitimate, criticism of Muslims is, in principle, illegitimate. On the other  hand,  he  also  expressed  ambiguity  about  whether  this distinction  really  makes  sense.  The  chief  editor  of Document similarly  described  it  as  'meaningless'  to  draw  a  specific  line  on what  you  can  say  when  it  comes  to  'the  conflict  between  the West/Europe  and  Islam'.  The  information  manager  of Rights.no mentioned generalising allegations about Somalis as examples of comments they sometimes let through because 'statistically, there are big problems among Somalis' and 'not everyone is very good at making  reservations'  when  writing  a  comment.  Although  the editorial line of the alternative media is based on an interventionist approach to comment moderation where all forms of hate speech are prohibited, this illustrates that their policies and practices are not consistent, particularly regarding groups that they are antagonistic towards.

## Audience perspectives: Conflicting views on comment moderation

Regarding how audience members perceive the dilemma between  free  speech  and  censorship  of  antisemitism,  an  overall distinction can be made between those who believe that freedom of expression should have certain limits, which means that interventionist moderation strategies are considered necessary, and those who argue for unlimited freedom of expression and thus are critical  of  comment  moderation.  Both  positions  exist  within  and across the comment sections of the alternative media under study, which means that all three sites  have  been  subject  to  praise  and criticism for how  they handle their comment  sections. The arguments  for  and  against  comment  moderation  are  presented next. Since the latter was more salient, these arguments are given more space.

## Arguments for comment moderation

The  supporters  of  an  interventionist  approach  believe  that freedom of expression is of major importance but maintain that it should have certain restrictions. The discussions include arguments that  refer  to  the  dilemma  between  freedom  of  expression  and opposition to antisemitism in general and what it means for how online  debates  should  be  handled  particularly.  Many  of  these commenters have argued from a normative perspective in which antisemitism and Holocaust denial are considered illegitimate, evil, and harmful to society. The main argument is that certain types of political views should not be accepted, even within the framework of wide freedom of expression, and that antisemitism and Holocaust denial  are  clear  examples  of  the  unacceptable.  The  following statement illustrates this point: 'We will stand on the barricades for freedom of expression, but that does not include defending hatred and  lies.'  Other  commenters  have  emphasised  that  'Jew-haters, whether Islamists or Nazis, do not belong in civilised societies' and that antisemites and Holocaust deniers are 'on the sideline' of what free speech is about. Consequently, they disqualify themselves from debates  and  should  not  be  allowed  to  express  themselves  in  the comment sections.

Another common argument is that the alternative media have no obligation to publish extreme voices, conspiracy theories or statements  that  contradict  well-documented  facts,  such  as  the systematic killing of Jews during World War II. As one commenter has put it: 'No  one  is entitled to have  unhistorical chatter published' because it is up to the editor-in-chief of any news outlet to decide what to publish, and 'that is how freedom of expression works'. Another debater has similarly stated that criticising Resett for inviting right-wing extremists to debates is 'not to gag freedom of  expression,  but  rather  to  use  it'.  In  this  context,  some  have stressed that those who promote antisemitic and neo-Nazi views are free to establish their own platforms. Moreover, among those who believe  that  comment  moderation  is  necessary,  some  explicitly argue from a strategic point of view. For instance, one commenter urged not to let 'these people destroy the alternative media so that they end up as unreadable, poisoned sites for extremists', which is claimed to be 'the highest wish' among the political left and 'old media'.  Other  commenters  have  referred  to  the  acceptance  of antisemitism  in  the  comment  sections  as  'too  including'  and  as 'self-harm'.  Overall,  this  indicates  an  agreement  between  the editorial line of the alternative media in question and parts of their audiences  regarding  how  they  perceive  comment  moderation, especially  when  removing  antisemitic  content.  However,  many audience members were also highly critical of comment moderation. Their arguments are presented next.

## Arguments against comment moderation

The  supporters  of  a  non-interventionist  approach  argue  for freedom  of expression as a fundamentally important liberal principle,  which  should  be  (almost)  absolute  and  limited  only  in cases of threats or incitement to violence. Consequently, the noninterventionists  across  all  alternative  media  sites  have  expressed support  for  how Resett performed  comment  moderation  before tightening the rules. In addition to the overarching main argument about the value of absolute free speech, these debaters argue for the importance of an open debate and point to the risk associated with blurry boundaries, which can backfire if freedom of expression is restricted.

In discussions on whether antisemitic or neo-Nazi beliefs should be allowed in the comment sections, those who support the noninterventionist position emphasise the value of exposing different opinions,  no  matter  how  incorrect  or  illegitimate  they  are.  A common statement  in  this  regard  is  that  'we  should  not  censor voices  we  do  not  like'.  The  main  argument  is  that  debate  and counterarguments are better than censorship and no-platforming, which are considered undemocratic and illiberal measures. In this context,  some  commenters  expressed  concern  about  extreme voices moving to closed platforms, where they would not meet any resistance. A recurring  argument  is  that  it is  bad  to  censor conspiratorial and 'paranoid' people because then they get their worldview confirmed. In a worst-case scenario, censorship can lead to something that is 'more dangerous'. Other commenters argued that by allowing and exposing antisemites and Holocaust deniers in the  comment  sections,  it  is  likely  that  more  people  will  become aware  of  what  these  actors  stand  for,  and  as  a  result,  those  who promote such illegitimate ideas make themselves irrelevant. As one commenter has put it: 'Idiotic things like Holocaust denial cannot stand the light of day.'

A closer look at the arguments against censorship of comments revealed  that  these  audience  members  are  worried  about  what restrictions on freedom of expression may lead to - for society in general and for the alternative media actors in question. Many asked rhetorical questions about where the boundaries should be drawn and emphasised that it can be difficult to distinguish between hate speech (as defined by law) and criticism of religion - both in the case of Jews and Judaism and in the case of Muslims and Islam. A key argument is that it should be legitimate to criticise all religions and ethnic  groups,  including  Jews,  which  the  editorial  line  of  the alternative media in question does not allow for. As for Holocaust denial, several debaters have pointed out that it should be legitimate to ask questions, even if it is a well-documented historical event and  a  'problematic  opinion'.  The  following  comment  illustrates this point: 'If a specific topic gets special treatment, it becomes a slippery slope argument.' The overall message  of the  noninterventionists is that true freedom of speech can be achieved only if everyone can express their views on all types of issues.

These  audience  members  further  stressed  that  the  arguments used  in  defence  of  comment  moderation  and  censorship  of antisemitism  can  just  as  easily  be  used  by  political  opponents, mainstream  media  and  the  general  public  to  silence  alternative media and the people who share their views, particularly on issues such  as  Islam,  immigration  and  racism.  Commenting  on  the arguments used by Document in favour of comment moderation, one debater claimed, 'You're shooting yourself in the foot - with a shotgun'. Another commenter criticised Rights.no for their position on the issue by stating, 'You are now using the same rhetoric as your opponents in the mainstream public'. An overarching argument is that there is a serious risk of hate speech legislation being abused, since 'many people want criticism of Islam and the questioning of mass  immigration  to  be  illegal'.  Consequently,  these  debaters argued that an interventionist approach to comment moderation will backfire and that the comment sections should be as open as possible with little or no editorial control.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the non-interventionists in  the  comment  sections  of Document and Rights.no show  little tolerance for antisemitism and Holocaust denial, some of those who defended free speech in the comment section of Resett (before they changed the rules) did so because they also supported antisemitic views.  A  meta  debate  about  Jews  and  Judaism  has  also  triggered conspiratorial ideas about Jewish power and influence in media and society  at  large.  Some  of  these  commenters  questioned  why  it  is illegal  or  illegitimate  to  'criticise'  Jews,  implicitly  or  explicitly arguing that powerful Jews are suppressing freedom of expression. Others have claimed that Jews undermine  society by being responsible for 'mass immigration' and 'multiculturalism', which is  a  common  antisemitic  trope  among  neo-Nazis.  Consequently, this  illustrates  that  a  non-interventionist  approach  to  comment moderation  can  attract and  facilitate  debaters  who  promote antisemitic and extremist views.

## Conclusion

While comment sections certainly provide an increased opportunity  for  people  to  engage  in  public  discussions  and  for interactivity between news producers and their audiences, they also pose  a  challenge  to  facilitators  of  such  debates.  This  study  has explored  how  far-right  alternative  media  perceive  and  perform comment moderation and how audience perspectives correspond with editorial  views.  Taking  the  dilemma  between two important but  conflicting  values  -  defence  of  freedom  of  expression  and opposition to antisemitism - as a point of departure, the study has contributed  with  new  insights  into  the  positions  and  arguments used  in  debates  about  comment  moderation  across  and  within alternative media, which, in recent years, has influenced the digital public sphere (Holt, 2020; Ihlebæk & Nygaard, 2021).

Despite being strong defenders of freedom of expression, which they believe is restricted in media and society, the editorial staff of the alternative media acknowledged that comment moderation is necessary. Mostly reflecting normative or strategic considerations, their arguments were similar to how mainstream media perceives the responsibility for handling online debates (Anderson et al., 2016; Ihlebæk et al., 2013; Ihlebæk & Krumsvik, 2015; Singer et al., 2011). This  article  has  thus  argued  that  when  it  comes  to  regulating comment  sections,  these  oppositional  media  actors  are  not  so alternative after all. The findings illustrate that comment moderation is crucial for all actors who seek to obtain or protect their legitimacy, regardless of their (counter-) position in the public sphere. The wish to be taken seriously and to gain influence and legitimacy were also important motivations when two of the sites examined, Document and Resett ,  applied  for  membership  in  the Association  of  Norwegian  Editors  in  2018,  thus  seeking  insider status in the professional media landscape (see Ihlebæk & Figenschou, 2022).

The  main  question  is  thus  not  whether  interventions  should happen  at  all  but  rather  where  the  boundaries  between  the acceptable and the unacceptable should be set. In the digital public sphere,  negotiations  of  boundaries  may  take  place  on  different levels  -  for  instance,  between  the  editorial  line  of  the  media  in question and the wider public, between media actors and their loyal audiences and among different audience members. This study has shown  that  while  there  is  a  general  agreement  on  the  need  for censoring  violent  rhetoric,  which  can  be  important  to  create distance to and prevent extremism, questions of what constitutes transgressive hate speech and how it should be handled have raised discussions and dilemmas. When  it comes to antisemitism specifically,  both  editorial  staff  and  most  audience  members described it as unacceptable. This points to a widespread agreement in the public sphere about antisemitism as a marker of a particularly illegitimate  and  harmful political  stance,  even  among actors who criticise the media and the public discourse for being narrow and biased. Considering how the editorial staff expressed zero tolerance for any statements that may be perceived as antagonistic towards Jews, the study indicates how these alternative media can function as important and efficient gatekeepers for counteracting antisemitic hate speech, which appears to be increasing in the digital public sphere  (European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights,  2018). However,  the  removal  of  such  content  may  cause  dissatisfaction among their most active audience members since many of them emphasised freedom of expression as a more important value.

Regarding other types of discriminatory content, the study has demonstrated  how  the  boundaries  are  blurrier.  Although  their guidelines prohibit all forms of hate speech, the editorial staff across all sites expressed more  tolerance for negative, generalising comments  about  Muslims  and  immigrants.  Furthermore,  the argument about the importance of 'criticising' Islam, Muslims and (mass) immigration occurred repeatedly among commenters. This points to a common understanding between the editorial line of the alternative media and their audiences concerning the legitimacy of antagonistic statements about these specific out-groups. Considering  how  prejudice  against  Muslims  is  significantly  more widespread  (34%)  in  the  Norwegian  population  than  prejudice against Jews (8%), allowing anti-Muslim content in the comment sections is probably less risky (Hoffmann & Moe (eds.), 2017).

The  present  study  has  some  limitations,  considering  that  it covered only a specific subset of alternative media in one country. Future  research  should  investigate  perceptions  of  moderation policies and practices and the boundaries between the legitimate and  the  illegitimate  across  and  within  alternative  media  with different ideological leanings and across country-specific (digital) public spheres. Moreover, this study is based on interviews and a selection  of  comment  sections,  which  means  that  the  findings reflect  the  expressed  views  of  editorial  staff  and  a  subset  of  the participating audience. Future studies should use other methodological approaches to provide more details on the relationship between policies and practices and to gain insights into the  views  of  the  less  active  audience  members.  Despite  these limitations,  this  study  provides  important  knowledge  about  the potential for the diffusion and prevention of different types of hate speech in a rapidly changing digital media landscape.

## NOTES

- 1 Weekly readership (%) from Newman et al. (2020).
- 2 For more on organisational features and these actors' role in the Scandinavian media landscape, see Ihlebæk and Nygaard (2021). To place them within a broader national and transnational ideological context, see Figenschou and Ihlebæk (2019).
- 3 See https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsomplakaten/vvpl-engelsk/. Since 2018, Document has been sanctioned 10 times, five of which were due to a lack of comment moderation. For PFU statistics, see https://presse.no/avansertsok/?\_sft\_redaksjon=document-no.
- 4 Due to one informant's wish for full anonymity, this interview was conducted by email. It was thus less extensive, and there was limited opportunity for follow-up questions, which probably had an impact on the scope and depth of the information given. The main moderator of Document never responded to interview requests.
- 5 All of the comment sections were publicly available at the time of data collection.

## REFERENCES

- Anderson, A. A., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2016). Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 30 (1), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw022
- Bergström, A., & Wadbring, I. (2015). Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication , 30 (2), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114559378

- Berntzen, L. E. (2020). Liberal roots of far right activism: The antiIslamic movement in the 21st century . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275012
- Castelli Gattinara, P. (2017). Framing exclusion in the public sphere: Far-right mobilisation and the debate on Charlie Hebdo in Italy. South European Society and Politics , 22 (3), 345-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2017.1374323
- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2018). Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism-Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU .

[https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/2nd-surveydiscrimination-hate-crime-against-jews](https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/2nd-survey-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews)

- Figenschou, T. U., & Ihlebæk, K. A. (2019). Challenging journalistic authority: Media criticism in far-right alternative media. Journalism Studies , 20 (9), 1221-1237.

[https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500868](https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500868)

- Haanshuus, B. P., & Ihlebæk, K. A. (2021). Recontextualising the news: How antisemitic discourses are constructed in extreme far-right alternative media. Nordicom Review , 42 (s1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0005
- Heft, A., Mayerhöffer, E., Reinhardt, S., & Knüpfer, C. (2020). Beyond Breitbart: Comparing right -wing digital news infrastructures in six western democracies. Policy & Internet , 12 (1), 20-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.219
- Hoffmann, C., & Moe, V. (Eds.) (2017). Attitudes Towards Jews and Muslims in Norway 2017. Population Survey and Minority Study . The Norwegian Centre for Holocaust and Minority Studies. Holt, K. (2020). Right-wing alternative media . Routledge.
- [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429454691](https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429454691)
- Holt, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., & Frischlich, L. (2019). Key dimensions of alternative news media. Digital Journalism , 7 (7), 860-869. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1625715
- Ihlebæk, K. A., & Figenschou, T. U. (2022). Knock, knock! Right-wing alternative media is at the door. Institutional boundary work in a hybrid media environment. In P. Ferrucci & S. A. Eldridge II (Eds.), Institutions Changing Journalism: Barbarians inside the gate (pp. 17-31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140399-3
- Ihlebæk, K. A., & Krumsvik, A. H. (2015). Editorial power and public participation in online newspapers. Journalism , 16 (4), 470-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913520200
- Ihlebæk, K. A., Løvlie, A. S., & Mainsah, H. (2013). Mer åpenhet, mer kontroll? Håndteringen av nettdebatten etter 22. juli. Norsk Medietidsskrift , 20 (03), 223-240.

[https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN0805-9535-2013-03-03](https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN0805-9535-2013-03-03)

- Ihlebæk, K. A., & Nygaard, S. (2021). Right-wing alternative media in the Scandinavian political communication landscape. In E. Skogerbø, Ø. Ihlen, N. N. Kristensen, & L. Nord (Eds.), Power, communication, and politics in the Nordic countries (pp. 263-282). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
- Jackson, P., & Feldman, M. (2014). Introduction. In M. Feldman & P. Jackson (Eds.), Doublespeak: The rhetoric of the far right since 1945 (pp. 7-35). ibidem-Verlag.
- Kahmann, B. (2017). 'The most ardent pro-Israel party': Pro-Israel attitudes and anti-antisemitism among populist radical-right parties in Europe. Patterns of Prejudice , 51 (5), 396-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2017.1394663
- Larsson, A. O. (2011). Interactive to me - interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media & Society , 13 (7), 1180-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811401254
- Løvlie, A. S., Ihlebæk, K. A., & Larsson, A. O. (2018). User Experiences with Editorial Control in Online Newspaper Comment Fields. Journalism Practice , 12 (3), 362-381.

[https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1293490](https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1293490)

- [Lurås, H. (2018). Ta ekstra godt vare på jødene i Norge. Resett . https://resett.no/2018/12/04/ta-ekstra-godt-vare-pa-jodene-inorge/](https://resett.no/2018/12/04/ta-ekstra-godt-vare-pa-jodene-i-norge/Moffitt)
- Moffitt, B. (2017). Liberal illiberalism? The reshaping of the contemporary populist radical right in Northern Europe. Politics and Governance , 5 (4), 112-122.

[https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i4.996](https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i4.996)

- Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492037
- Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Digital News Report 2020 . Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2020
- Noppari, E., Hiltunen, I., & Ahva, L. (2019). User profiles for populist counter-media websites in Finland. Journal of Alternative &
- Community Media , 4 (1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1386/joacm\_00041\_1
- Nygaard, S. (2020). Boundary work: Intermedia agenda-setting between right-wing alternative media and professional journalism. Journalism Studies , 21 (6), 766-782.

[https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1722731](https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1722731)

- Reich, Z. (2011). User Comments. The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic, Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96-117). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340747.ch6

- Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed., pp. 23-61). SAGE Publications Ltd.
- Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist-audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies , 16 (1), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856509347719
- Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen cebates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics , 16 (4), 463-487.

## [https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849](https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849)

- Rustad, H. (2019). Resett bommer totalt: Antisemitter har samme forhold til ytringsfrihet som islamister. Document .

[https://www.document.no/2019/08/05/resett-bommer-totaltantisemitter-har-samme-forhold-til-ytringsfrihet-som-islamister/](https://www.document.no/2019/08/05/resett-bommer-totalt-antisemitter-har-samme-forhold-til-ytringsfrihet-som-islamister/)

- Schwarzenegger, C. (2021). Communities of darkness? Users and uses of anti-system alternative media between audience and community. Media and Communication , 9 (1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3418
- Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., Reich, Z., & Vujnovic, M. (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers . WileyBlackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340747
- [Storhaug, H. (2018). Grotesk jødehat i Resetts kommentarfelt. Human Rights Service . https://www.rights.no/2018/12/grotesk-jodehat-iresetts-kommentarflet/](https://www.rights.no/2018/12/grotesk-jodehat-i-resetts-kommentarflet/)
- Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Figenschou, T. U. (2020). The alarmed citizen: Fear, mistrust, and alternative media. Journalism Practice , 16 (5), 1018-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1825113
- Yılmaz, F. (2011). The politics of the Danish cartoon affair: Hegemonic intervention by the extreme right. Communication Studies , 62 (1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.533340

## BIRGITTE P. HAANSHUUS

The Norwegian Centre for Holocaust and Minority Studies

Doctoral Research Fellow b.p.haanshuus@hlsenteret.no