Description
Use examples from the readings, lecture notes and outside research to support your answers. The assignment must be a minimum of 1-full page in length with a minimum of 2 outside sources. Please be sure to follow APA guidelines for citing and referencing sources. A1. Explain the intent and fundamental concepts of search and seizure law as it applies to digital crime.2. Identify and explain situations where search and seizure is possible without a warrant. Please describe the limitations.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Copyright 2020. Routledge.
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Chapter 4
Cyberviolence
Introduction
Violent crime can be understood as crime in which a perpetrator harms or threatens to harm
someone with physical force. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has historically identified and
kept records of four types of violent crimes—murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Other types of violent crimes include kidnapping, torture,
harassment, and extortion.
What links these more well-understood types of violence to violence in the digital environment (i.e. cyberviolence) is the harm caused. People can be hurt by the content produced and
distributed in the digital environment. Wall defines cyberviolence as:
the violent impact of the cyberactivities of another upon an individual or social grouping. Whilst such activities do not have to have a direct physical manifestation, the victim
nevertheless feels the violence of the act and can bear long-term psychological scars as a
consequence.
(1998)
We add to this definition by suggesting that cyberviolence can not only have long-term psychological scars, but also sociological ones. Cyberviolence is a category of cybercrimes in which it is
common for entire groups of people to be victimized. Through hate speech, for example, women,
minorities, or individuals belonging to alternative lifestyles can be demonized and demeaned
with long-term consequences for how they are viewed in society. Or, through social shaming
people with unpopular views can be demeaned to the point where they lose their jobs, relationships, and maybe take their life. In this chapter we will explore several forms of cyberviolence,
including cyberbullying, cyberstalking, trolling, flaming, and hate speech.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AN: 2141005 ; Roderick S. Graham, ‘Shawn K. Smith.; Cybercrime and Digital Deviance
Account: s7348467.main.ehost
72
4
Cyberviolence
Comparing Violence in the
Physical Environment with
Cyberviolence
There are several similarities between physical violent crime and cyberviolence. First, and most
importantly, someone is hurt in both environments. Because the hurt in the digital environment
is not physical does not mean that the damage is less. The argument can be made that because
some acts of cyberviolence lead to lifelong psychological problems and even suicide, symbolic
violence can be equally or more damaging than physical violence.
Consider the events surrounding the suicide of Brandy Vela. Vela was an 18-year-old high
school student living in Texas. On the morning of November 29, 2016, she sent an email to her
family saying that she was going to kill herself. Family members rushed home and saw her leaning against the wall with a gun to her chest. They could not convince her to put the gun down,
and Brandy committed suicide. She had been receiving text messages from an untraceable cell
phone saying hurtful things. Fake Facebook pages had been set up, using her photo, saying
that she would “offer sex for free.” In 2017, a former boyfriend and his current girlfriend were
arrested and charged in association with Brandy’s death.
A second similarity is that the violence committed in both environments is often powered
by emotions. Domestic violence—someone battering their spouse—is often a spontaneous reaction of anger. Although movies and television dramas depict sexual assaults as premeditated
acts coming from strangers, most sexual assaults are committed by an angered acquaintance of
the victim attempting to assert dominance. The perpetrator believes they are entitled to sexual
activity and react negatively when permission is not granted. Emotion also underpins acts of
cyberviolence. As we will discuss below, flaming, trolling, hate speech, and cyberbullying are
primarily ways of an individual or group lashing out against another individual or group.
Although there are similarities, there are also differences. One difference is the means by
which harm is caused. The means by which violence is committed in the physical environment
is primarily through one’s own body or by some weapon that acts as an extension of the body.
When someone physically attacks another person (assault) they are using their body to inflict
harm.1
Even when there is no actual assault, but instead the fear of assault, the logic is that there
is a credible threat from the perpetrator. The tools used in the commission of assault—weapons like handguns and knives—are extensions of the body. By contrast, the means by which
cyberviolence is committed is through the mind, and the tools are the affordances (or design
features) of technologies in the digital environment. These technologies are primarily found in
the application layer, as these are the technologies used to produce content. Recall in Chapter 1
that cybercrime is often a product of people finding novel ways to use technologies. The same
affordances of a platform like Twitter that allow people to congratulate others, can also be used
to demean them.
All individuals can commit physical harm to another person. However, not everyone has
equal ability or predisposition to do so. A small boy with a water pistol is not a credible threat of
violence. They do not have the physical presence (they are a small child) or the weapons (a water
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 Cyberviolence
pistol) to commit harm. However, as that child grows into a young man his physical presence
alone will likely make him threatening to others who are smaller and weaker. Moreover, he will
have the means to buy and use weapons. Additionally, he may have higher levels of testosterone
than older males and females, making him more impulsive and willing to use physical force. It
is these reasons—along with social conditions such as poverty and challenging home circumstances—that make young men the primary candidates for committing physical violence.
Similarly, all individuals can commit cyberviolence to some degree; however, everyone
is not equally likely to have the means or predisposition to do so. Cyberviolence requires
a facility with symbolic communication. Constructing a particularly biting post or reply on
Facebook, a clever tweet, or finding an appropriate meme requires some level of social awareness and linguistic ability. Understanding the nuances of a software platform to the degree that
your attacks can be more effective requires a degree of interest in the technology that others
may not have.
Therefore, a second difference between physical violence and cyberviolence is likely the
type of perpetrator. One area of focus from scholars has been gender differences. There is some
evidence that girls are more likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying—one
form of cyberviolence (Peterson & Densley, 2017). However, scholars are still gathering research
on the causes of cyberviolence and what type of person is most likely to use the digital environment to harm others. Given the different means used, future research may show that the modal
perpetrator of cyberviolence will be different than the modal perpetrator of physical violence.
Types of Cyberviolence
Violent crimes can be organized by who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. The violent
crime of rape, for example, can be understood as an individual perpetrator committing an act of
sexual violence towards an individual victim. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism are often individuals
committing indiscriminate acts of violence against a group (nation, religious group, racial group,
etc.). The violence associated with gang warfare can be understood as groups committing acts
of physical violence against other groups. We use this way of thinking in order to organize the
types of cyberviolence. In Table 4.1 we compare physical violence to cyberviolence, organizing
type of crime by perpetrator and victim.
In this chapter we will focus on six types of cyberviolence:
•• Cyberbullying—Tokunaga (2010) defines cyberbullying as “any behavior performed
through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others”
(278). Other definitions also include a power dimension, as attempts at cyberbullying
are most harmful when committed by a person or group in a position of power over
someone else. There have been numerous high-profile suicides that have been directly or
indirectly caused by cyberbullying. There have also been several movies and television
shows that dramatize cyberbullying. As a result, cyberbullying may be the most readily
identified form of cyberviolence.
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
73
74
4
Cyberviolence
Table 4.1 Classification Scheme for Types of Violent Crimes
Perpetrator
Victim
Physical Violence
Cyberviolence
Individual
Individual
Group
Individual
Cyberbullying
Cyberstalking
Flaming
Trolling
Online shaming
Individual
Group
Homicide
Battery
Domestic violence
Child abuse
Gang violence
Hate crimes
Terrorism
Group
Group
Warfare
Trolling
Hate speech
Cyberwar
•• Flaming—Flaming can be defined as the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults,
and ridicule (Kayany, 1998). Flaming often occurs in spaces where controversial issues
are being presented. Actions of flaming do not usually rise to the level of crime but are
a form of cyberdeviance, where the flamer is usually crossing boundaries of expected
behavior.
•• Trolling—Trolling can be described as the act of generating conflict online, often for
a meaningless prank. Another common definition of trolling is the practice of following someone on social media without interacting with them, but this action may be best
described as a mild form of cyberstalking. Buckels, Trapnell, and Paulhus (2014) write,
trolls share many characteristics of the classic Joker villain: a modern variant of the
Trickster archetype from ancient folklore … Much like the Joker, trolls operate as
agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting ‘hot-button issues’ to make users appear
overly emotional or foolish in some manner.
Like flaming, trolling is a type of cyberdeviance. What distinguishes trolling from
flaming is that flaming is more spontaneous and powered by immediate emotions, while
many trolls focus on the long-term impact of generating conflict.
•• Hate Speech—Hate speech can be defined according to three elements (Matsuda, 1989):
(1) the speech implies or states that the target group is inferior (racial, ethnic, sexual),
(2) the speech is aimed at a group that has been historically oppressed or disadvantaged,
and (3) the speech is intended to be harmful. Hate speech is usually aimed at a group—
most often a racial or sexual minority. In the United States, speech depicting groups as
inferior is generally protected under free speech laws, however there are strong social
norms against the practice.
•• Cyberstalking—Reyns, Henson, and Fisher (2011) define cyberstalking as “the repeated
pursuit of an individual using electronic or Internet-capable devices” (1). If the cyberstalking consists of reading and commenting on a victim’s Instagram posts and sending
them unwanted emails, one could argue that these transgressions are somewhat minor
and at any rate the perpetrator can be blocked. However, it is not the act itself, but the
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 Cyberviolence
fear and anxiety associated with the act that matters. In other words, if a person knows
that someone is stalking them, this in itself is harmful even if the erstwhile stalker is
ineffective. As such, cyberstalking can cause wide-ranging harm to the victim—they
could be distracted and unable to concentrate at school or work or their stress levels may
rise leading to additional health complications.
•• Online Shaming—Online shaming refers to a group subjecting an individual to harassment, bullying, and condemnation because of some real or perceived transgression. Like
trolling, flaming, and hate speech, online shaming is generally not considered a crime,
although the pain and hurt caused by being shamed online can be significant.
Cyberbullying
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
reported that at least 21% of girls and 8% of boys admitted to being bullied through electronic
means, such as texting, email, instant messaging, and websites (David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2009).
These rates can vary depending upon how cyberbullying is measured, however most definitions
of cyberbullying include four components: (1) a repeated behavior, (2) the behavior is in the
digital environment, (3) a power differential between offender and victim, and (4) the behavior
is meant to harm. Tokunaga (2010) uses three of these components and defines cyberbullying
as “any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that
repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort
on others” (278).
There are differences between cyberbullying and traditional, physical bullying. First are the
already-discussed differences in means of producing harm—physical versus symbolic. Another
difference is that cyberbullying is less prevalent than traditional bullying. Ybarra, Boyd,
Korchmaros, and Oppenheim (2012), in a study of American youth between the ages of 6 and 17,
report that “Despite the rapid uptake of technologies, ‘traditional’ face-to-face communication
still is the dominant mode of bullying.” Dan Olweus, a major figure in the study of traditional
bullying, writes that the interest in cyberbullying is largely media-driven, and that parents and
practitioners need to focus more on traditional bullying (2012). But the fact that cyberbullying
is not as prevalent as traditional bullying does not mean that cyberbullying is not a phenomenon
of interest. Scholars, practitioners, and the public at large are aware of the harm cyberbullying
can cause. Indeed, because cyberbullying affects young people disproportionately, and because
the victims of cyberbullying have often been pushed to high-profile suicides, cyberbullying has
garnered a large amount of media attention. Some notable incidents include:
•• Megan Meier committed suicide on October 15, 2006. Meier, 13 at the time, had been
cyberbullied by the parent of a schoolmate. The parent, Lori Drew, had created a fake
Myspace account and used it to send derogatory communications to Meier.
•• On April 8, 2012, Grace McComas took her own life after a bully labeled Grace a
“snitch” on Twitter. The online attacks migrated to offline physical gossip. The combination of online and offline cyberbullying drove McComas to commit suicide.
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
75
76
4
Cyberviolence
•• August Ames, an adult film actress, committed suicide on December 5, 2017 after
receiving negative comments for a Twitter post in which she stated a refusal to work
with actors who had done gay porn.
•• Aspiring country singer Katy Summer, 15, committed suicide on May 21, 2018. Summer
committed suicide because of the taunts about her kissing a boy at a party and the music
she made.
MYTHS OF CYBERBULLYING
The Cyberbullying Research Center provides evidence-based tips and strategies on cyberbullying (see Figure 4.2) However, there are several myths about cyberbullying. Television shows
and movies depict cyberbullying as a common occurrence in American high schools, the consequences of which are often suicide. However, these media portrayals are not grounded in the
reality of cyberbullying and can be misleading to the public. Sabella, Patchin, and Hinduja (2013)
point out several myths of cyberbullying. We list some of these myths:
1. Everyone knows what cyberbullying is. Although we have stated a working definition of
cyberbullying above, researchers have not come to a consensus about what constitutes
cyberbullying. As we put it, cyberbullying has been theorized to be composed of at least
four components— (1) a repeated behavior, (2) the behavior is in the digital environment,
(3) a power differential between offender and victim, and (4) the behavior is meant to harm.
However, most discussions of cyberbullying do not include all four. For example, some
discussions may not include repeated behavior. Is it cyberbullying if on only one evening
a victim was sent insulting communication? This may best be understood as flaming.
Similarly, suppose someone of less power—an unpopular student in a high school—sends
derogatory communications to someone with more power—the captain of the cheerleading squad. Can we say this is truly bullying, or just an annoyance? This confusion is
illustrated in a recent report published by the Pew Research Center (see Figure 4.1). The
center reports that most teens surveyed were the victims of cyberbullying. However, what
indicates cyberbullying does not include power differences and repeated communications.
As a result, the report can claim that 59% of teens have been victims of cyberbullying.
2. Cyberbullying causes suicide. This myth is media driven. There are certainly cases,
including those we highlighted previously. However, Sabella and colleagues (2013) note
the vast majority of cyberbullying victims do not kill themselves, and those who do
typically have experienced a constellation of stressors and other issues operating
in their lives, making it difficult to isolate the influence of one specific personal or
social problem as compared to others.
(2705)
Cyberbullying is an issue that needs to be addressed, but when suicides occur it may be
because the victim has experienced other harmful experiences or social dysfunctions.
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 Cyberviolence
A majority of teens have been the target of cyberbullying, with name-calling
and rumor-spreading being the most common forms of harassment
% of U.S. teens who say they have experienced__online or on their cellphone
Any type of cyberbullying listed below
59
Offensive name-calling
42
Spreading of false rumors
32
Receiving explicit images
they didn’t ask for
25
Constant asking of where they are,
what they’re doing, who they’re with,
by someone other than a parent
21
Physical threats
Having explicit images of them
shared without their consent
16
7
Note: Respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Those who
did not give an answer or gave other response are not shown.
Source: Survey conducted March 7–April 10, 2018.
“A Majority of Teens Have Experienced Some Form of Cyberbullying”
PEW RESEARCH CENTER
Figure 4.1 2018 report from Pew Research Center on cyberbullying (www.pewinternet.org/2018/09/27/amajority-of-teens-have-experienced-some-form-of-cyberbullying/).
Figure 4.2 A major resource for cyberbullying research is the Cyberbullying Research Center’s website (https://
cyberbullying.org/). The center and website, housed at Florida Atlantic University and directed by criminologists
Justin Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin, provides research, basic facts, and tips about cyberbullying.
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
77
78
4
Cyberviolence
3. Cyberbullying occurs more often now than traditional bullying. The research shows that
bullying in the physical environment is much more common than bullying in the digital
environment. For example, Payne and Hutzell (2015) found that around 28% of students
reported that they had been victims of traditional bullying, but only 9% of students
reported that they had been victims of cyberbullying.
4. Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of passage all teens experience. There
is an understanding by some that dealing with mild forms of violence—insults, being
picked on, being forced to conform, is a normal part of youth development. Many adults
believe that navigating these experiences is a way to teach young people the adult skill
of dealing with adversity. Said another way, social cruelty is a way of life, and one
needs to get used to it and learn how to deal with it. The idea that young people must
deal with adversity is not new, however: The notion that bullying or other types of
violence should be acceptable because they teach someone how to live in the world is
a myth.
5. Cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids. There is a sense, again coming from the
media, that cyberbullies are hell-bent on destroying the lives of the victim. This does
not seem to be the truth in most cases. Those who participate in cyberbullying are only
trying to have some fun and are not attempting to inflict lasting harm. In this sense,
cyberbullying for many kids is “a joke” where the perpetrator has no sense that his or
her actions will permanently damage the victim.
6. To stop cyberbullying, just turn off your computer or cell phone. Parents may determine
that the most effective way of shielding their children from cyberbullying is by taking
them out of the digital environment. This, however, is not realistic for two reasons.
First, the young person loses out on important life experiences. Post-industrial society
requires that a person enter and navigate the digital environment. Young people must
learn how to seek, interpret, and produce symbolic communication on the Internet. In
the long run, restricting computer access only makes it harder for the young person to
anticipate and defend against cyberbullying in the future. Second, this is practically
impossible. The digital environment is made up of interconnected networks that are not
under the control of individuals. A young person cannot avoid cyberbullying by turning
off their cell phone or computer. Even if they turn off their phone, they will eventually
have to check their email, be required to go online for school, or connect with family and
friends through social media.
Trolling and Flaming
TROLLING
Trolling is the act of generating conflict online, often for a prank or to cause controversy. A
major difference between trolling and flaming is that the troll often has no vested interest in
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 Cyberviolence
the conflict-generating content they produce or have no relation to the victims they target. It is
primarily a game or prank, encompassed in the catchphrase “doing it for the lulz,” or doing it
for the humor. Milner (2013) describes trolling through what he calls the logic of lulz. The logic
of lulz, Milner argues, is to generate a “hyper-humorous, hyper-ironic, hyper-distanced mode
of discourse” (89). Milner argues that trolls seek out normative discussions, ideas, and images
and intentionally try to mock or subvert them. An example of this would be joining an online
forum for people struggling with alcoholism, and repeatedly posting comments about the joys
and health benefits of drinking beer.
Trolling can range from a harmless prank to an act that generates tremendous psychological
harm. In 2011 Sean Duffy was sent to prison in the United Kingdom for Internet trolling. Many
families set up Facebook tribute pages for their loved ones who have died. Duffy had posted
derogatory messages on several of these pages. He also posted videos on YouTube mocking the
deceased. On one tribute site to a young girl who died in a car crash, Duffy defaced a picture of
her by adding stitches to her head and placing a caption under one picture reading “Used car for
sale, one useless owner.”2 For these acts he was given an 18-week sentence. Duffy did not know
the victims, and his actions appeared to be just for “the lulz.”
In the United States, trolling can fall under existing laws of cyberstalking in some states.
However, in the UK, trolling is more directly covered under the “Malicious Communications
Act.”3 Thus, more accurate measures of the prevalence of trolling can be found in the United
Kingdom. According to a 2015 story from the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, 1,209 people
were convicted of trolling in 2014 compared to 143 in 2004—a 10-fold increase in a decade. It
is likely that the rates are comparable in the United States4 given comparable rates of internet
penetration and usage in the two countries.
Flaming
Flaming can be defined as the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults, and ridicule (Kayany,
1998). Flaming often occurs on websites in which controversial issues are discussed, like the
Huffington Post (see Table 4.2). Like face-to-face discussions that lead to raised voices and
strong emotions, Internet users may express disagreement rudely and use profanity. Thus, a key
difference between flaming and trolling is that a genuine interest underlies flaming motivations. A person who flames may themselves feel aggrieved because a sentiment was expressed
that they strongly disagree with. A second difference between flaming and trolling is that
flaming is an “in the moment” act and does not carry over to another context, or even to a
subsequent post.
Flaming may have more wide-ranging societal implications than trolling. Inflamed passions
are often the result of perceived cultural, ideological, or political differences that manifest themselves in online forums or social media. We are more likely to communicate harshly towards a
person we believe to be of a different race, creed, or political affiliation—and thus not deserving
of civility.
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
79
80
4
Cyberviolence
Table 4.2
The Huffington Post, Trolling and Flaming
The anonymity of the digital environment can be a positive for society. It allows citizens to speak openly
about their concerns without fear of punishment from their government or other citizens. However, in some
contexts, the anonymity allows people to troll and flame. Several news sites have either made comments
possible only with a registered account, or suspended comments altogether. In 2013, The Huffington Post
suspended anonymous comments on their site, and gave the justification below.
As of next month, Huffington Post users won’t be able to create anonymous accounts to post on the site; going
forward, their identities will have to be verified internally. HuffPost recognizes that many people are not in
a professional or personal situation where attaching their name to a comment is feasible, and this change
will not require users to identify themselves in connection with each comment. Rather, we will ask users
to verify their identity when creating an account, which will reduce the number of drive-by or automated
trolls …
… Trolls have grown more vicious, more aggressive, and more ingenious. As a result, comment sections
can degenerate into some of the darkest places on the Internet. At HuffPost, we publish nearly 9 million
comments a month, but we’ve reached the point where roughly three-quarters of our incoming comments
never see the light of day, either because they are flat-out spam or because they contain unpublishable
levels of vitriol. And rather than participating in threads and promoting the best comments, our
moderators are stuck policing the trolls with diminishing success.
Hate Speech
The term hate speech is used in everyday language to describe almost any critical comment towards a person or group. Expressing one’s opinion about controversial issues such
as same-sex marriage, racial inequality, or immigration can be considered hate speech. This
is especially so when one’s opinion is not shared by most of the population. However, hate
speech has a more specific meaning in social science scholarship, and is composed of three
elements (adapted from Matsuda, 1989): (1) the speech implies or states that the target group
is inferior, (2) the speech is aimed at a group that has been historically oppressed or disadvantaged, and (3) the speech is intended to be harmful. This definition hinges on power
differences—as the communication must be aimed at a historically oppressed group, and
intent—the communication is a clear attempt at causing psychological harm. Examples of
hate speech include:
•• A website arguing that people of European ancestry are more intelligent than people of
African ancestry
•• A troll in an online forum replying to a person they think is Hispanic, saying that all
Hispanics should go back to Mexico because they are all gang members
•• Twitter comments aimed at a tweet celebrating the marriage of a gay couple, with the
tweets calling the marriage “disgusting” or “sinful”
Evidence suggests that there is a large amount of hate speech online. Ofcom, the United
Kingdom’s communication regulatory agency, released a report in early 2017 stating that 1 in
EBSCOhost – printed on 1/4/2024 10:01 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 Cyberviolence
3 Internet users between the ages of 12 and 15 reported seeing hate speech online in the previous year.5
In the United States, hate speech without a stated violent intent is not considered unlawful.
Hate speech is protected under free-speech laws and prohibits government agencies from regulating what can and cannot be said. However, free-speech laws do not protect individuals from
private companies regulating speech. Business may prohibit certain types of speech—such as
preventing an employee from commenting on the plans of that business. They may also terminate
employment if they deem the speech to be detrimental to their company’s image.
Social norms are also outside of free-speech laws and dictate that hate speech is unwanted
in most contexts. Comments about racial minorities, religious minorities, and women are usually
met with opprobrium. Even comments from years past unearthed on social media can be a cause
for public condemnation and other negative sanctions. Major League Baseball pitcher Josh Hader
had to publicly apologize in 2018 for tweets he published in 2011 using racial epithets. Comedian
Kevin Hart stepped down from hosting the 2019 Oscars because of anti-gay tweets he published
between 2009 and 2011.
THE HARMS OF HATE SPEECH
Hate speech is prevalent in the digital environment. Indeed, an article in the Washington Post
called the summer of 2018 “The Summer of Hate Speech.”6 However, in an American context
free speech is valued highly, and protected by the First Amendment. There is a long-standing cultural and political tradition of letting people say what they want as long as they do not advocate
(physical) violence. For example, in Germany it is a punishable offense to deny the Holocaust. In
the United States Holocaust denial is a form of deviance, but not punishable by law.
Although most speech is permissible online in the United States, there is evidence that
speech can cause harm in at least two ways. First, hate speech can lower the status of the group
in the eyes of others. In this sense, hate speech is sociologically harmful. Hate speech can be
used to paint a group as violent, unintelligent, or unpatriotic. This type of labeling can prepare
members of dominant groups psychologically for more egregious types of behavior towards the
minority group. In this sense, hate speech is a “gateway act” to discrimination, the supporting
of harmful social policies, or physical violence. Numerous historical episodes show this pattern.
The Third Reich in 1930s Germany, white supremacists in Jim Crow Era United States, and the
Hutu majority in early 1990s Rwanda all used hate speech against a minority group. This speech
was used to produce a sense of “otherness” in Jews, African-Americans, and the Tutsi minority,
respectively. Once “otherized,” dominant groups had the justification for discriminatory laws or
committing acts of violence towards these groups.
Second, hate speech is psychologically harmful to the individuals within the groups it is
directed at. In this sense, hate speech is functionally equivalent to the taunts and in
