Wanted: All hands on deck to fight hate speech

Liberal leaders call on int’l organizations, social media platforms, civil society, journalists to work together

By Marites Dañguilan Vitug

Hate speech, which has become prevalent in the age of social media, is a phenomenon that bubbles up to the surface, a symptom of a deeper malaise in many societies. As such, creating laws to fight this menace is not a solution.

Rather, two major steps should be taken to curb hate speech:

•  International organizations, social media platforms, civil society, and journalists should come together to set definitions and guidelines on dealing with this problem.

• Governments should enact and enforce policies to address the roots that grow hate speech.

Liberal leaders raised these key points in an online forum on October 9 organized by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), a regional alliance of liberal and democratic political parties. The CALD panel focused on hate speech in politics—which is one of four kinds of hate speech—and its impact on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

The other forms of hate speech, according to a 2020 study by the Asia Centre, a Bangkok-based think tank, relate to ethnic and religious issues; discrimination against foreign nationals, mainly migrant workers and refugees; and bias against sexual minorities. The Asia Centre held a three-day hybrid conference (October 7-9), with some attendees physically present while others, like the CALD panel, were virtual participants, to discuss the challenges and find solutions to this scourge.

Law is not the answer

One thing that came out of the panel discussion was an aversion to having a law as an antidote to hate speech because it would only address the tip of the problem. As Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister of Thailand, pointed out: “Hate speech is only a symptom of a deeper problem, which is one of racial, religious, sexual or political bias, and intolerance. [There is] no better way to deal with those problems than at the root which means you need policies that will address these.”

Similarly, Senator Francis Pangilinan, CALD president, told the audience that deeper issues give rise to hate speech such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination. It is vital, he said, that the media provide context when reporting on hate speech.

In addition, like a hammer, a law would treat every word uttered as a nail. Differentiation and context get lost. “There’s always the danger that if you try to use the law as a main mechanism, you will fall prey to increased censorship,” Abhisit said.

There’s also the practical side to it. As Abhisit explained, “Existing laws in Thailand on defamation and computer crimes are not well suited to the task. To file complaints…will not stop the spreading of hate speech…” He said that authorities often do not go to the source of the hate speech and disinformation but prosecute those who share it.

In Malaysia, Jayanthi Balaguru, chair of the CALD Women’s Caucus, pointed out that one factor responsible for the spread of hate speech is government legislation which allows those in power to foist the values of intolerance on the public.

When leaders use hate speech

In the cases of the Philippines and Malaysia, hate speech starts from the leaders. As the Philippines’ Pangilinan said, “it seems to have found legitimacy with no less than the President  [Duterte] as the font, delivering them like a natural part of his vocabulary.” President Duterte’s words are interpreted as official policies and can incite violence.

For example, Pangilinan, who is also president of the Liberal Party (LP), highlighted the three-year incarceration of LP member Senator Leila de Lima: It started as misogyny, “a particularly spiteful kind of hate speech,” which led to robbing the senator of her freedom and rights.

In the drug war, the centerpiece program of the government, Duterte has ordered police forces to kill drug users and pushers. What are the results? Thousands of killings justified by the police as done in self-defense because the suspects fought back.

Balaguru said that a big factor that makes hate speech rampant in Malaysia, where race and religion are tinderbox issues, is that leaders themselves promote and use it: “They have successfully institutionalized [it] by imposing broad laws which can be used to suppress the freedoms of people.”

Social media platforms

To counter hate speech, Abhisit proposed that clear guidelines should be formulated, both at the international and national levels, on what constitute hate speech in politics and how to prevent it. When this is done, a “politically neutral” body should be created to set up the mechanisms to deal with hate speech. “It [neutral body] may be comprised of media experts and non-governmental organizations whom all parties agree upon,” he said.

Who would best enforce these guidelines? Here’s where the owners of social media platforms come in. Abhisit and Pangilinan were one in the view that owners of the platforms should cooperate with national and international groups to hew to accepted guidelines.

Moreover, Pangilinan added that social media platforms should self-regulate and be aggressive in policing their ranks.

For Balaguru, representation through a “collective voice big enough that cannot be simply ignored by the public” can make the government as well as others listen and be tolerant of diverse views.

(You can watch the discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvEmhVU98EI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0N1elj3xTB-MFH6O1dfocwqjeyD0WVo-wqU2U7CBStzHOjLiTuPDI3nqU)

All these steps combined, as the liberal leaders see it, can contribute to a roadmap to curb hate speech.

Marites Dañguilan Vitug is an author and editor-at-large of Rappler.