YouTube Transcript:
PEPSS seminar 2023 #1: The boundary between free speech and hate speech – Louis, Gelber, Bilewicz

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

[Music]

well thank you very much and thank you

for coming

um I would like to Echo the

acknowledgment of the indigenous owners

on the of the land on which we meet this

evening and pay my respects to Elders

past and present

so I want to talk I'm going to talk a

little bit about the I guess what you

might call a political philosophy

approach to hate speech and the

boundaries of free speech or appropriate

boundaries of free speech this is

obviously a very controversial topic one

that I've spent I think now 25 years

um researching so I'm going to frame it

around the sort of theoretical

justifications for Free Speech but then

go more into the kind of scholarship and

I want to finish on some really

contemporary challenges in this area so

uh I'll just do this very briefly but

just for clarity for purposes of clarity

um in the literature there's a variety

of arguments but the foremost core

arguments as to why Free Speech deserves

to be protected uh these four arguments

uh democracy autonomy truth and

suspicion of government the fourth one

is much more prevalent in the United

States of course than in other countries

and has deeply informed both the wording

of and the subsequent jurisprudential

interpretation of the First Amendment so

the argument from democracy is of course

very easily understood the idea is that

you don't have a real democracy unless

citizens have citizens broadly conceived

not narrowly in the legal sense but

members of the polity have to have the

ability to engage in discussion and

debate around political issues that

matter to them so that they can form a

view of what they think what they

believe have it not just how they want

to vote but how they want us can join

jointly construct Society uh so the

argument from democracy privilege is

what might be called political speech or

political discourse although that term

is extraordinarily difficult to Define

um in some cases where speech is said to

undermine democracy uh the aversions of

the argument democracy would say that

there are legitimate reasons to regulate

that speech so a good example is

disinformation which is now defined as

the deliberate use of misinformation

primarily online in order to undermine

core institutions and to harm Society to

harm democracy so there's a there's a in

at least theoretically philosophically a

valid reason to regulate it although in

practice of course it's extraordinarily

difficult to do that because defining

this information as I just did is easy

but identifying disinformation in the

public sphere is extraordinarily

difficult and trying to regulate it in a

way that doesn't constitute what you

might call an over Broad regulation of

free speech one that infringes too much

on Free Speech that's the real challenge

in practice and that's extraordinarily

difficult to do

um there are also others who say that

regulating speech pre-judges the speech

that ends up in the public sphere and

that that inherently

um the under the argument from democracy

therefore implies that inherently you

should leave as broad a category of

speech as possible to be free because

you don't want to pre-judge that public

sphere it's actually up to the public

sphere to determine what it wants to

have in the public Sphere not up to

government or regulators and the

autonomy or self-fulfillment argument is

that as human beings we need to be able

to develop our individual capacities to

think and to plan and to uh to organize

our own lives and so there are various

versions of the autonomy argument the

truth argument at its

in a non-sophisticated version says it's

through public to obliteration that we

engage in a search for truth as in we we

learn that the Moon is not made of

cheese and that the Earth is not flat

but we know of course in the social and

political Arena that that version of the

argument from truth fails empirically

because there's abundant evidence in

World politics that public discourse

does not result in the Primacy of Truth

so there are more sophisticated versions

of the argument from truth which still

derive from John Stuart Mill that one is that

that

um the Assumption of infallibility even

if we believe that what we know is true

particularly in the social and political sphere

sphere

um we we don't 100 know that we're right

and so we can't assume that we're

infallible so we still have to engage in

debate over ideas and the second more

sophisticated version is the dead Dogma

idea as in John Hill said we shouldn't

hold our views as dead Dogma we need to

be able to rationally and

argumentatively defend why it is that we

hold the views that we hold and for that

free speech is indispensable and the

fourth argument is obviously very clear

a suspicion of government a deeply

informs First Amendment jurispreneur you

can't trust government to regulate

speech because they will get it wrong

and they will overreach

um and I say I I I say that that deeply

informs the First Amendment but there's

also enormous amounts of empirical

evidence in support of the idea that

when governments have leeway to restrict

speech their preference is to over

restrict speech and I could give you

countless examples of over restriction

of speech in the Australian context

where we lack an explicit federal

constitutional or statutory Free Speech

protection and we have this kind of

hodgepodge mismatch mix and match

approach to protecting free speech in

Australia and as a result have really

significant examples in relation to

protests for example or allegedly Terror

speech for example and numerous other

things where the government has overstepped

overstepped

so the argument around hate so that's

why free speech is important

there's an argument around hate speech

that says that tries to Define hate

speech in a way that says hate speech is

harmful to all of those things

hate speech is harmful to the

development of individual autonomy

because it directly harms the

individuals who are its targets and the

communities to which they belong

and it harms them in way that in ways

that prevent them from being able to

develop fully in fully autonomous ways

it harms the search for truth because it

deploys tropes racist tropes for example

into the public sphere and it certainly

harms democracy by marginalizing and

excluding some people from being able to

participate with equal opportunity in

public debate and there is therefore

widely around the world with the

exception of the United States a view

that hate speech can and should be

justifiably regulated because it doesn't

fulfill those purposes for the

protection of free speech and it

actually harms the public sphere

so there's a counter argument that we as

I said before you can't prejudge the

public sphere and it's up to the public

sphere to make that argue to to work out

what it wants and that some some much

hate speech even though we find it

abhorrent and horrible nevertheless is a

contribution to public debate

um and that's a that's a serious

argument that's made by serious Scholars

who recognize that there are harms to

hate speech but who say that

nevertheless because it's core political

discourse when somebody puts up a sign

in their restaurant saying I won't serve

black people here

that's a political statement that's not

just an expression of their opinion

although it is it's also a political

statement in a particular context in

which historically it was possible to

put up that sign and in which that sign

instantiated a racist hierarchy in that

community so that makes it a very

political statement and so there are

some who say yes hate speech harms but

at the same time it's core political

discourse and so we can't regulate it so

how does that so if you accept the

premise and many people do including

First Amendment Defenders many of those

the most sensible ones do accept that

hey speech can harm so how can it harm

the literature says it can harm in two

ways it can harm causally and constitutively

constitutively

it harms closely by causing by having a

causal relationship with subsequent

events that happen to that person so it can

can

um prevent somebody from engaging in

public discourse by marginalizing them

for example it can cause fear and

intimidation it can cause a loss of

associative Liberty where people are

scared to hang out with other members of

their Community or even allies of theirs

become scared to hang out with them in

case they become targeted it can cause

of course overt discrimination in things

like housing jobs the provision of

public goods and services and at its

worst of course it can incite violence

and again there's there are there's

there's ample evidence

historically around the world that

certain types of hate speech have a

causal relationship with not just a

coincidental but also arguably a causal

relationship with violence and in fact

the United Nations the

parts of the United Nations that are

concerned with atrocity crimes are now

looking very carefully at the kinds of

speech patterns and language use which

have been identified as very likely

precursors to violence

uh one of which is

um relegating a certain section of the

community to being treated like animals

particularly Vermin or

um or insects another one is associating

a certain section of the community with

viruses with you know the danger of

viruses and dangerous risks to the rest

of society there's a great project by

Susan banash called the dangerous speech

project which is linked in with that

work in the United Nations so we know

that the causal argument is pretty strong

strong

then there's the constitutive argument

and this one is more controversial but

many people including myself find it

persuasive so the constitutive argument

says that just in saying the hate speech

you've harmed people even if the targets

even if nothing else as in

discrimination in a job or violence

happens afterwards

and the reason that that can happen is

that hate speech happens in contexts

and as we all know in contexts like

countries like Australia liberal

Democratic orders around around the

world so in those societies

discrimination is systemic there are

groups within those societies that

suffer from systemic discrimination and

marginalization and so hate speech

doesn't occur in a vacuum hate speech

occurs in that context and in a context

where racism for example is systemic an

act of racist hate speech is a

perpetuation of that racism it's an

assertion that that systemic

discrimination is valid in the eyes of

the person speaking and it's an

exhortation on the people who are

listening to buy into that world of you

so it performs an act of subordination

a racist Act of hate speech in a context

within which racism exists as a systemic

form of discrimination is an act of subordination

subordination

it ranks and the kinds of things that

constitutively it does is rank The

Targets in their communities as inferior

legitimates discriminatory Behavior

against them and silences them constitutively

constitutively

constitutive silencing means that

um so causal silencing is people are too

scared to speak back

right to engage in counter speech that's

causal silencing constitutive silencing

is people still can express their words

but their words don't achieve the force

they want them to achieve

so they can say it's not fair to say

those things about us or stop or might I

want to protect my kids or you know

you're wrong about that but it doesn't

achieve the effect they wanted to

achieve that is to say the list the

speaker who uttered the speech act still

propagates racism or anti-Semitism or

whatever the case may be in that context

and the word so we hear this from the

lived experience of communities who are

targeted by discrimination that they try

and speak back or they try and say no or

they try and when they do try they feel

as though they're not listened to they

feel as though their words don't have

the effect that they want them to so

that's constitutive silencing

these harms occur at every level they

occur at that level of individuals of

course who are targeted or who are

family members of or friends of or you

know close personal have a close

personal relationship with individuals

who are targeted it harms the

communities to which they belong and by

that I don't only mean the community

that shares their identity I'm in the

broader community and it also harms

democracy by marginalizing people and

excluding them from from public debate

either constitutively or causally so

there are these are these are pretty

significant body of harms if you accept this

this

um body of work if you yeah if you

accept this hypothesis or a set of arguments

arguments

I mentioned before that the evidence on

harms is nevertheless highly contested

and it's it's contested in three ways

it's contested empirically

philosophically and on and normatively

in the sense of whether that harm is or

is not a sufficient basis for regulation

so I'll just talk about that for a

little bit

um the ideas around the Imperial the

empirical challenges to the evidence on

the harms essentially say

you can't get the evidence for this you

can argue persuasively using theories

that this is what happens but you can't

get the evidence some people in fact go

worse from go harder than that and say

this it's just completely

methodologically unsound and you're

extrapolating from interpersonal

situations and it's rhetorical empiricism

empiricism

um but more sensible people say firstly

it's very difficult to distinguish in

real life studies between

um the effects of exposure to systemic

discrimination and the effects of

exposure to hate speech

so every time you do a study asking

people about their exposure to hate

speech their lived experience also is

informed by the fact that they've been

exposed to other forms of discrimination

and it's very very hard to disaggregate

those things you can ask them

specifically some studies do ask them

specifically about their experiences

with hate speech but it's a it's a

methodological challenge for those of us

interested in scholarship

secondly it's some people say it's just

paternalistic to say that targets of

hate speech have these responses and

have these effects psychological effects

and so on it's just paternalistic it's

absolutely not true there are plenty of

people who are targeted by hate speech

who respond by being galvanized into

action or determined to prove their

detractors wrong

the third sorry and the third issue

which I've already mentioned is

causality it's very difficult to

establish a cause a causal connection

between someone experiencing hate speech

and then how they tell you they feel I

mean it's not impossible but it's

difficult because you have to recognize

that that's we're dealing with human

beings here in this type of research and

it's difficult to establish causality

even there are even people who would

challenge the causality of the way the

Nazis talked about Jews and what

happened in the Holocaust I mean you

would think that's a pretty clear causal

connection but there are even people who

say well yeah okay it's plausible but we

still haven't you know we can't prove

um on the other side of course there are

people who say that there are plenty of

empirics these criticisms are invalid

firstly we have the um commentate

comments by uh people who've had the

lived experience and a very strong body

of literature from within for example

critical race Theory talking about the

effects of being exposed to hate speech

and secondly we have studies that use

particularly qualitative methods

particularly interviews and focus groups

to ask these communities what their

experiences of hate speech have been including

including

studies that I have done myself which

all to my knowledge support the um

hypothesis that these are the harms that

hate speech causes

philosophically there's a challenge to

whether this argument is persuasive or not

not

um and I won't spend much time on that

one obviously the argument I've just

told you about constitutive harm in

particular is philosophy is just

challenged by people who say I just

don't buy that I just don't buy this

notion of constitutive harm yes racist

hate speech for example happens in a

context where systemic discrimination

happens but there's always challenges to

systemic discrimination there's always

agency to challenge it and people do

challenge it and change does happen and

policy change happens and changes to

Attitudes happen and you're discounting

all of that you're kind of victimizing

these targets by saying well this is

which isn't I mean somebody like me

would respond to that by saying it

doesn't happen to have to happen to

every Target every single time in order

for the argument about harms to be valid

but nevertheless they're philosophical

contestation and then of course there's

a question of whether the harm itself is

a sufficient basis for regulation not

because the harm isn't bad but because

there are harms of regulating

so this is an argument that if you allow

government to start regulating hate

speech then you create new Harms so if

you leave hate speech unregulated the

harms are incurred on The Targets in

their communities primarily and you're

asking them to Bear the burden of those

harms but if you um start regulating

hate speech as well you um you create

different types of harms so

um first is that one I mentioned about

presupposing the terms of the debate

you're taking components out of the

debate and you don't know what that's

going to do to public discourse and that

might well weaken and make public

discourse much less robust and the

second one is actually a very clear

argument that taking those things

prejudging and taking them out of debate

actually undermines Democratic legitimacy

legitimacy

processes of democratic legitimation are

absolutely premised on the Public's

ability to say what they think about policy

policy

so opponents of same-sex marriage for

example need to be able to say that they

oppose same-sex marriage in the lead up

to in a non-vilifying way in a lead up

to a plebiset because eventually the

plebiscite and then will will happen and

then the parliament will enact a law and

they might disagree with that law but we

still have to persuade them that in a

Democratic Society you still have to

fire laws with which you disagree

because if everybody goes around saying

I don't agree with that Laura I'm not

going to follow it I mean I'm you know

all proportions guarded right we have

Civil Disobedience I respect that but on

the whole you can't say well I'm not

going to pay my taxes because I don't

agree with that tax law and I'm not

going to abide by anti-discrimination

law because I don't I didn't get a say

right I I don't like it and I'm not

going to abide by it we expect everybody

to abide by anti-discrimination law and

we expect everybody to abide by tax law

and one of the reasons that we expect

people to do that is because there's

been a process a legitimate process of

democratic legitimation a valid process

of democratic legitimation in which

people could have their say even if they

disagreed with the policy being enacted

so the argument is that if you take hate

speech out of that then you've prejudged

that discourse and you've prevented

people having their say and if you've

prevented people having their say they

have less reason to obey the law they

have less reason to view that law is

legitimate now the counter argument to

that is you're only taking out the

vilifying stuff they can still Express

their view so the a really good example is

in my view it is not an act of hate

speech to say due to my religious belief

I do not support same-sex marriage

in my view it is an act of hate speech

to say due to my religious views I

believe that gays are going to burn in

hell and they have no place on this Earth

Earth

that is an act of vilification because

it says they have no right to membership

of the community they should not exist

but the first one was an expression of

view on policy so I think the weakness

in that Democratic legitimation

challenge is that it is still possible

to participate in public debate in ways

that don't vilify and I think that

distinction has been lost in Australian

political debate absolutely lost

thanks to

so back we had around same-sex marriage

this is the second last slide so I'm

moving now to kind of ongoing problems

in this debate one problem in this

debate is capacious definitions of hate

speech the definition I've given you

where I've connected hate speech to

systemic discrimination is narrow

there are a whole bunch of people

including people conducting surveys into

people's experiences of hate speech who

worryingly use a very capacious

definition and certainly in the media

and in public debate these days a lot of

people use the shorthand of hate or have

experienced hate to claim to have been

victimized by hate speech and where

those claims do not bear any

relationship to systemic discrimination

I don't call it hate speech it is not my

view that anything that makes you feel

uncomfortable or that you think is

really nasty and some things are super

nasty that doesn't make it hate speech

just because it was super nasty there's

lots of super nasty stuff there's lots

of things that make us feel

uncomfortable that doesn't make it hate

speech again that differentiation is

being lost really significantly lost in

important ways in public debate where

all kinds of people say they've been

subjected to hate on all kinds of

grounds if you look at the surveys

and then the final challenge is

um or set of challenges is around the

Free Speech broadening of the Free

Speech principles so the Free Speech

principle sounds simple but because it

covers speech

but it doesn't cover all speech there

have always been instances of speech

that are not covered by Free Speech

principles perjury is a really good

example there is no free speech defense

to committing perjury you can't say but

it's my free speech you commit perjury

that's regarded as so terrible that it's

outside the coverage of free speech

principles defamation outside the

coverage of free speech principles child

sex abuse material outside the coverage

of free speech protection right so we've

hived off a bunch of things which even

though they're related to speech we just

don't protect so free speech doesn't

protect everything

burning your draft card outside the principles

principles

Free Speech doesn't protect everything

but right now there's a concerted

attempt by conservatives globally to

extend the Free Speech principle to

cover expressive conduct that otherwise

would not be protected and the

paradigmatic case of that is the baker

a baker who was asked to bake by clients

paid by clients to make a wedding cake

and refused to make a wedding cake for a

same-sex couple because he said I don't

agree in same-sex marriage this is my

expression the making of the cake is my

expression and therefore I'm going to

violate anti-discrimination laws which

require me to provide a service to you

on an equal basis and I'm going to

violate anti-discrimination laws by

saying it's my free speech

so I don't have time to go into the

details about the principle there is

that the concept of what is being

covered by a free speech principle is

getting expanded by conservatives this

is happening in abortion in relation to

information about abortion it's been

happening in relation to the provision

of services to lgbtqia plus communities

florists photographers venue hire

um Bakers all of them it's a very

organized campaign

um and my fear is that if a free speech

principal gets extended to cover

everything then it covers nothing

and we have to still have a sensible way

of differentiating between what is

covered by a free speech principle and

what is not otherwise we're risking Free

thank you so much cap and um so I'm I've

actually felt such a sense of discomfort

even listening to the things that you

study I'm so grateful that there are

people like you that are thinking really

deeply about the moral boundary of these actions

actions

um I when I study that kind of behavior

of course I I benefit from the moral

luxury of um of

uh you know condemning

um the group or perhaps of siding with

it and really diving deep thank you so much

much

um anyways there's another person now

who's going to speak and I'll ask you

Michelle to share your screens

um and um we'll just put you on a

um Professor belovich speaks with

personal as well as professional

experience of the boundary between free

speech and hate speech in the sense that

some of us as psychologists know that

his career has been debated in the media

in Poland and um the legitimacy of his

own research has been challenged by

people coming from an anti-semitic

perspective so

um just I know I'm not sure if you're

going to speak about that Michelle but

um I just want to say someone that's put

your moral courage where your research

is now I'm not actually showing your

um your video it's it's fine if you

don't want to

um to share your screen but I just

wanted to say that oh no there we go

sorry I've just yeah I I hope I hope you

can see the screen now right we can see

the screen and we can see you um

speaking so thank you so much for being

here and for being part of our

discussion um over to you

okay thank you very much for inviting me

and it's a honor to speak other uh

Professor galber whom I decided to tell

a lot and and I never thought that there

will be occasion to to meet and discuss

and share very you know different

perspectives but what I think I'm going

to talk about is quite complementary to

to to to some themes that that she

raised in her

um in her talk um

um I will not talk about my own

experiences and of course I should be

the a very strong advocate of uh Free

Speech as I uh as this is the the the

value which is certainly under threat in

my country but I'm a psychologist and

today I will focus mostly on

um the outcomes of research that we've

been doing on uh hate speech in my uh

research group um

so of course this uh debate around hate

speech and Free Speech has been very uh very

very

um vibrant in in recent months after

the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk

where Elon Musk explicitly said that

he's going to defend

um defend the freedom of speech on on

Twitter he uh made several

um uh several changes in the policy of

Twitter in terms of moderation

um he reopened several accounts that

were previously banned for spreading

drug battery language like

uh president Donald Trump's uh um uh

account on Twitter uh Jordan Peterson

and and several several others uh that

were uh very much debated because of of

uh spreading uh

um derogatory or offensive um uh messages

messages

um and what has been uh shown recently

by Anti-Defamation League

um is that um after the uh takeover of

Twitter after the purchase of Twitter by

um by Elon Musk there was a visible

increase in the anti-jewish anti-semitic

contest contents on Twitter so they did

this study on by selecting the samples

of uh

um of of tweets and automatically

um indicating uh through natural

language processing the the amount of

anti-Semitic modules and you can see

that there is a really large increase

within a very short period of time so

this was I think two months Gap uh

another thing that Anti-Defamation

League did was that uh something which

is quite common and there are also other

institutions doing this kind of

interventions was reporting tweets that

are violating uh Twitter rules for in

this case anti-semitic contents and

looking how the Twitter uh regulate how

Twitter regulates it so how Twitter

responds to uh to those uh users who are

flagging contents who are who are reporting

reporting

um uh hateful contents and they found

that in November

um so uh in the early November just

because before before the these these

changes in in Twitter's policies uh uh

there will be a lot of of of uh response

and um

removals of of hateful tweet tweets but

then already two weeks later uh there

will be a massive change that that most

reactions from Twitter will be

completely no reaction no action no no

response to the person who is uh who is

reporting hateful contents so here we

see these two sides that we've been

talking about uh this freedom of speech

value which of course refers to the

first amendment in the U.S

um that has been explicitly stated by by

um Elon Musk as justification of of his

uh uh of the changes that he imposed in

Twitter and on the other hand we have

another value which is protection of uh

particularly minority groups uh from the

the harm which can be caused by uh or

from discrimination that is that is

caused by durgatory language um

it is regulated on different levels so

you can see that here there's a conflict

of course between the American

regulations and the the more universal

laws from the um from the United Nations

um and of course in Europe we have uh

more strict regulations uh uh within the

Council of Europe that defines hate

speech and also uh there are several

policies based on that that are trying

to regulate hate speech in the country

members of the Council of Europe okay so

what we as psychologists can can can can

add to that

um coming back to the distinction

um proposed by Professor Governor I

think that we are much more on this on

this uh causal side so looking at the

consequences of uh of hate speech and

got an Albert already in in 1950s in his

very famous uh the nature of prejudice

described hate speech as what he called

then anti-locutions so he wrote about

derogatory language and he wrote that uh

using this metaphor of by parking

barking talk although most barking uh

barking does not lead to to biting yet

there is never a bite without a previous

barking so suggesting that this is like

the early warning before the serious

discrimination or the serious harm is

going to happen

um and I think that now we are we are

moving towards a more interpreting hate

as biting itself so trying to see

whether it in fact is a form of abuse

and not something that precedes abuse so

where we as psychologists could

contribute to this discussion to this

debate between free speech and hate

speech I think that much of this

discussion and this was also so um

discussed in the previous talk is a

discussion about the nature of hate

speech so whether certain expressions of

uh negative attitudes towards uh

minority groups that are very often

discriminated in other ways are mere opinions

opinions

so part of the political discourse or

they are acts of verbal violence there

are acts of violence committed using

different means not physical aggression

but verbal aggression and in this

discussion or in this debate we can

propose two streams of argumentation one

we can give evidence about the

consequences of hate speech for targeted

minorities so what psychological

consequences what are the psychological

consequences of being victim of hate

speech and the second is showing the

similarity of the mechanisms that occur

when people are exposed to hate speech with

with

other forms of aggression so we know

quite a lot in Psychology about other

forms of violence and aggression how do

they spread in the society how do they

change people's thinking how do they

change people's behavior and emotion and

we could see whether similar effects can

be observed when people are exposed to

hate speech or yeah so I will focus now

on this to to streams also showing quite

some of our own uh studies uh on on

these themes first the consequences for

targeted minorities

they were very interesting archival

Studies by Brian Mullen and here again

the the question of causality um it's

it's something which you can quite well

address in those uh archival studies

because the time passes only in One

Direction right so uh this is what what

uh what Mullins and Smith shot that and

they use the term adenopolism but

basically we're here when we are talking

about ethnopholism valence we are

talking about the negativity of language

which has been used in certain time to

describe a certain uh certain immigrant

groups and in this study they found that

even when uh in this model there is a

controlled level of suicide rates in

home uh in in home countries of of those

immigrants right so so basically here

you can see that what they are modeling

here is this increase in the suicide

rates among different groups of

immigrants in Canada and they found the

significant effect of the language which

has been used so this hateful language

that that has been used about immigrant

groups it really explains the Immigrant

suicide rates controlling for different

other other variables in the model again

this is an archival Evidence but we

thought that this kind of evidence could

be also

um presented using uh using more actual

uh data of different kinds so here here

is one study that I've been doing

together with several colleagues for the

fundamental rights agency in Europe and

this was a study of Jewish minorities

living in different European countries

and we had a relatively large samples of

Jewish minorities and we asked them how

often do they hear

statements about you know that Jews are

have too much power in their country

that Jews are not loyal citizens in

their country etc etc so we gave them

examples of most common hate speech and

semiticate speech and in this study we

also measured intentions to emigrate

whether whether people are actively

preparing to to emigrate from the other country

country

and we found that hits which was

actually significantly related to

intentions to emigrate but in this model

we controlled for all we we thought very

relevant causes for immigration like for

example crime level in your country

unemployment level in your country uh

immigration uh there is a lot of

discussion that you know Jews emigrate

from different countries in Europe

because there is a lot of immigration

from the Middle East and and their

tensions and conflicts on that ground or

governmental corruption so you can see

that hate speech the fact that you're

hearing anti-semitic slurs in your

environment is a stronger antecedent of

of willingness to to emigrate than any

other causes that we ever assessed in

this study

um another another case are

international students and I I I'm I can

probably say that living in a quite

ethnically homogeneous country I work at

the University which is becoming

increasingly diverse and we have

approximately 5 000 students uh who are

international students who study it at

my university university of Warsaw and

also we did some correlational studies

some some time ago with the office for

international uh students at my

University where we assessed many uh uh

many psychological problems that

students might have in adapting in a in

a new environment so we assess their

mood psychological well-being but also

we indicated uh even post-traumatic

stress disorder among them and we found

that all of them were significantly

correlated with exposure to hate speech

that they had while uh living in Poland

so the ones who have heard some ethnic

slurs in their environment would you

could really see that their negative the

would have more negative mood it would

affect their well-being Etc the problem

here is of course and this is a problem

that was correctly imagined by Professor

galber that we didn't control for other

forms of of discrimination we didn't

measure other forms of discrimination

and probably you know when when as as

golden Alpert said when when Doc is

barking it's quite possibly he's biting

as well at the same time right so that's

we we don't know whether these people

were also um targeted by other forms of

of uh discrimination or aggression or violence

violence

so uh we did the next series of study in

a context which is highly Salient now in

Poland because Poland received a large

group of refugees from the Ukraine

during the war and the attitudes towards

those refugees and immigrants is

generally positive and welcoming yet

still some incidents of of of

uh of uh derogation hatred you you can

still still see them on internet but

also in everyday situations

um and just talking about the numbers

this was a group of more than one

million of people that came to Poland

before 2020 too so so after because the

war started in 2014 so after this during

this war we received one million

refugees and immigrants more than one

million and currently we have received

another more much more than one million

it's it's we don't have a exact numbers

it was up to 2 million set at a certain

time so basically it's approximately 10

percent of the Polish population

currently are refugees and immigrants

from Ukraine so this is a really large

uh immigration within a short period of

of time uh and uh we um we connected the

study of uh several psychological

consequences of hate speech and we

presented to cranians with examples of

anti-ukrainian hate speech that we've

collected from internet and we've asked

them how often they have experienced

these kind of statements in their uh

everyday uh uh life in in Poland

um so we measured hate speech exposure

but we also measured other forms of of

discrimination uh uh in in workplace Etc

Etc

um and we try to to to to to look

whether hate speech still has some

predictive effect on uh on PTSD the

symptoms among those immigrants and

refugees who are coming from the war

zone in many many uh many of them and we

found that in fact hate speech is a

significant predictor of PTSD symptoms

even if you controlled for other forms

of experience discrimination and this is

to large extent mediated by

acculturation stress so if you see hate

speech in your environment you start

thinking that you will have problems in

effect in in normal acculturation in

this in this country that you're not

welcomed here that it creates stresses

in your everyday encounters with the

host country population which ultimately

leads to uh to PTSD symptoms again this

is not a longitudinal study but we found

this both for PTSD symptoms and for

depression symptoms among among

Ukrainian immigrants and refugees so

both both clinical symptoms that we've

assessed in this study and now a

different context that a little bit

allows to uh to assess some more of

causality here uh this is a context of

LGBT uh studies that we've done on an

LGBT community we've done such studies

in Italy and in Poland looking and uh in

these two studies these were actually

two quite independent studies done by

two of my uh ma students one of them

studied in Italy so she conducted the

study in in Italy another studied in in

Poland so you can see the studies are

quite different but uh one thing is very

common we the studies were experimental

so we basically presented people with

many comments from internet in the two

sets of comments uh in one set of

comment uh the comment included some of

the uh of the hate speech examples uh

and in the second in the second

condition participants have read many

comments that did not include any

derogatory statements and in this

experimental studies and after after we

came back to to them and we've measured

the general well-being satisfaction with

with life scale and we looked at uh

people who are highly identifying

members of LGBT community so like

activists and so on and people who are

who have lower levels of identification

and we found that actually the problem

of hate speech we've seen mostly among

people who are at high levels of

identification so people who strongly

identified with uh being gay or lesbian

or generally with LGBT community uh when

they were exposed to hate speech the

hate speech would really lower their

level of of well-being

um and and this was first small

experiment conducted in Italy

another student wanted to study this

problem in in Poland

um and

and so um we we worked with students who

are members of LGBT community and and we

really try to make these studies as uh

uh you know ethically

um correct so there was a lot of uh

support provided to to to participants

in these studies and in Poland is you

know a very interesting case in this

respect because Poland has very uh

discriminatory uh loads against LGBT so

basically there is no recognition of a

civil civil Partnerships there is no

recognition of gay rights in in Polish

law at all and even some communities

like kashnik in this case declared

itself to be lgbt-free zones so we have

this uh these municipalities that signed

the collaboration that they would be

free of LGBT propaganda Etc as they

named it

um and and we found in the study when we

presented the regulatory statements

against the LGBT people among comments

presented to to participants again in

Poland we looked here on negative and

positive effect using a classical panel

scale and we found the effect of

negative affect mostly to be visible

among High identifiers so those LGBT

people who are strongly identified when

they are exposed to hate speech their

General well-being deteriorates and the

negative effect is a dominant dominant

reaction so um and and we found very

similar pattern in studies conducted in

Italy by Mauro Bianchi who also did

experimental studies on hate speech

presenting gay people with uh with with

hate speech versus with non-derogatory

non-derogatory

labels so either category labels are

homophobic labels and again he found out

that among uh among those gay people who

who are he called them high coming out

people so basically people who are open

with their identity who are expressing

their their gay identity for it this was

particularly dangerous for them so when

they were exposed to to homophobic

comments the internalized homophobia

would increase right so they would be

mostly targeted by by hate speech and

and his speech would have largest

consequences for for those uh people who

are again more expressing their

identities so they are probably more

strongly identified

and the second argument that I think we

as psychologists could provide to this

debate is the argument about the

similarity of mechanisms to other forms

of aggression so what do we know from

aggression research from the general

model of aggression uh of of uh Brad

bashman and Craig Anderson for example

how aggression works when we are exposed

to aggression when we see for example

violent media violent uh TV shows or

violent uh contents on the Internet or

where we are exposed to Everyday

violence during conflict it changes our

cognition changes our affects but there

are two very important mechanisms here

the sensitization to violence it

destroys our sensitivity to violence we

start treating violence as something

normal we do not react emotionally to

violence we stop being sensitive to that

and the second mechanism it is the

deficit of empathy it lowers our empathy

to the victims of violence and

ultimately it makes us more prone to

commit aggressive behavior ourselves

right so so this is how the exposure to

violence generates or increases uh

potential for aggressive behavior and we

this was found in many contexts in in

you know people exposed to Violent

images video games movies and TV

internet uh most of these studies looked

at psychophysiological measures so found

it on a very very basic

psychophysiological uh measures

and we've studied this also uh in the

context of hate speech so we thought

that contact with hate speech also would

decrease lower sensitivity to hate

speech people will stop consider hate

speech as a something

dangerous something threatening they

will normalize it and ultimately once

they get used to hate speech once this

desensitization will occurs occur people

will start using k-switch themselves it

will increase their Prejudice and they

will justify violence and this is what

we found in many studies uh here the

case of large large sample correlational

studies where we found that in fact

people who are more exposed to hate

speech their sensitivity to hate speech

would be lower so they will start

treating history just something normal

and this would justify Prejudice and

different antimic Grant attitudes and we

found it in numerous correlational

studies but then we thought okay

correlational studies that's not a very

strong evidence so we thought about

doing experimental studies on that here

we are looking on majority groups so the

ones who are producing Kate speech the

ones who are from the groups that are

discriminating against minorities and we

did this exposure phase so we did this

bogus bogus cognitive tasks participants

were thinking that the task is about

remembering ring remembering comments

from internet if they are written with

different fonts and different colors so

how how the type setting of of contents

affects memory processes but in those in

this task one condition always included

derogatory statements that were hate

speech and the second group received

statements that did not include the

regulatory comments and then we did a

measurement phase where participants

were asked to rate the offensiveness of

statements so we asked them so in both

cases in both conditions we presented

them hate speech so we presented hate

speech to people who are not previously

exposed to hate speech and to the ones

that were exposed to hate speech for a

long time and we asked them to rate

whether certain examples that we

presented to them is hate speech in fact

or not and then we measured other

consequences basically Prejudice whether

they would accept people accept

minorities as neighbors as co-workers

Etc and again we found the same that

participants who were exposed to hate

speech for a long time they will not

recognize hate speech as something

threatening as something offensive they

will start treating cases as something

normal and this would increase

ultimately their prejudice uh recently

we found this on a more basic

physiological levels so again we had the

same training phase so we presented to

people do hate speech for a long time or

not and then there was this measurement

phase where we recorded heart rate and

we looked at this initial deceleration

which which shows strong emotional

reaction so in in heart rate activity

when you see something very emotional

you have this initial deceleration of

heart rate and this is something we

found only present when we presented

hate speech initially to people who are

not previously exposed to hate speech

for people so those people who here we

we rate as neutrals so these are people

who didn't see his speech before now we

present hate speech to them and we see

the deceleration

for people who were not present who were

presented to hate speech very frequently

so who are seeing a lot of hate speech

before when they see subsequent hate

speech they do not react with the

deceleration so they probably are not

reacting very effectively to that and

the final uh result that I wanted to

share with you is the the study that

we've recently done on empathy and this

is a study we've done with with uh in

collaboration with neuroscientists that

are was particularly looking at empathy

and particularly one region that is uh

related so the the the structure uh tpj

temporal parental Junction which is

related to people's ability to take

perspective of other peoples and wanted

to see whether

people who are exposed for a long time

to hate speech so again we use the same

training phase we presented people with

hate speech for a long time versus not

so we had the second condition of people

who are not exposed to hate speech for a

long time

and then we presented them with a

situation a painful situation they were

observing a painful situation of other

individuals who are either in group or

out group members

and we found here that actually

completely regardless of whether the

observed in-group of an out-group member

we found the very same effect that

um people who were previously exposed to

hate speech they would react with less

empathic reaction when they are seeing

pain than people who were not previously

exposed to hate speech so this initial

uh initial uh brain emerging study shows

that hate speech might in fact destroy

empathy but not only outgroup empathy

not only empathy to the groups that are

victims of hate speech but it might lead

to certain maybe emotional empathic numb

being a fact that people are generally

reacting in a less empathic way and I I

think this is this might be this more

General consequence of hate speech which

should lead us to treating his speeches

something as a form of of as a really

destructive destructive

destructive phenomenon in in political

life okay so so basically uh what we can

to sum it up what we can say based on

this psychological studies is that sorry

that uh that um sorry uh that that both

a psychological the arguments that I

presented here probably suggest that

that uh hate speech has severe

consequences for targeted minorities so

it really affects mental health of

minorities uh and uh it's very similar

in mechanism to other forms of

aggression so the same uh destruction of

empathy and desensitization that we know

from other forms of violence it also

occurs when people are exposed for a

long time to hate speech and this should

be our our argument probably to limit

somehow hate speech but um I don't think

that legal regulations are the only way

to confront hate speech and I believe

that also confronting hate speech in our

everyday uh life uh reacting to that

might be equally

um maybe not Equitable also effective

way of dealing with the problems so not

the legal regulations are not the only

way in which we can deal with with this

problem and my time is out so I will not

uh say more about that but maybe in the

discussion if you want to continue that

I can tell you something more about some

experiments that we've been doing about

uh the effectiveness of confronting

haters so we use some artificial

intelligence in our studies to confront

haters and to see whether they could

their behavior can be changed by

reaction of another account right by by

somebody who's intervening and not just

by The Regulators not just by the

moderators of the contents uh on social

great well I would like to invite you

Kath to come up and we now enter the uh

experimental free speech and hate speech

portion as a lived experience where we

can now speak to each other no I'm just kidding

kidding

um please let me uh welcome Professor

gilber back to the podium to react to

your talk uh Mikhail uh Professor

Village and then you even react to hers

go ahead please

uh thank you that was a very

enlightening and I'm actually really

delighted to see

um all that really wonderful Empirical

research that supports

um their arguments around hate speech

harming uh so obviously we use very

different methods

um mine have been pretty much

exclusively qualitative

um but the experimental stuff is really

insightful and the other you know

studies you've done are very insightful

so thank you for introducing me to those

um just a couple of things to say about

some broader comments that you made

firstly you meant you opened with

Twitter and Elon Musk

and mentioned the content moderation and

how changeable it is and it is very

changeable but it's also in my opinion

really poorly done I don't think it's a

secret to say that but um but the one of

the problems with the companies

themselves doing content moderation is

that they do it really badly and they do

it really badly for lots of reasons but

one of the reasons is that they're in

two of the reasons are their entire

business model is is premised on clicks

you get more clicks the more upset

people are so they have monetized

I am very successfully because they're

really big companies they have monetized

this kind of behavior

um and they make enormous profits out of

it the second problem is that their

business model is global so they have

one definition of hate speech they have

a book that's apparently about that

thick that all the moderators use to try

and implement this one definition of

hate speech and the other forms of

content that they moderate hate speech

obviously isn't the only content they

try to moderate and that means that they

get things wrong all the time they just

they don't have enough they're trying to

get more information from from the local

context they have teams in a variety of

countries not everybody is in the same

place who does content moderation but

they're really bad at it because again

they're Global bit they have this Global

business model that is in direct

contradiction to their need to take

context into account in order to be able

to understand the real impact of hate

speech so there are lots of reasons why

they're particularly bad at content

moderation as well of course as being

inconsistent and of course the third

part of the content moderation is there

are some poor human some a lot of it's

done with AI of course but in the end a

decent proportion of those are the

reports of of content that violates

their standards or the stuff that was

initially picked up through AI ends up

in front of a human being and the

conditions for those human beings the

working conditions for those human

beings are horrendous they are exposed

to this material just constantly in

their work environment without

sufficient support so that's all problematic

problematic

um the second thing um was that uh you mentioned briefly that you contrasted

mentioned briefly that you contrasted the First Amendment to the relevant

the First Amendment to the relevant article in the International Convention

article in the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of

on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

racial discrimination um just as just to give you a sort of a

um just as just to give you a sort of a nice anecdote on how much more complex

nice anecdote on how much more complex this whole debate has become over the

this whole debate has become over the years in 1982 the United Nations

years in 1982 the United Nations released what they call a general

released what they call a general statement on Article 19 which is the

statement on Article 19 which is the Free Speech provision of the

Free Speech provision of the International Convention on civil and

International Convention on civil and political rights

political rights um that of a general statement is the

um that of a general statement is the United Nations guidance on how to

United Nations guidance on how to interpret the meaning of this clause in

interpret the meaning of this clause in international law Article 19 is the Free

international law Article 19 is the Free Speech Clause of the International

Speech Clause of the International Convention on civil and political rights

Convention on civil and political rights and is also the title of an NGO in based

and is also the title of an NGO in based in the UK called Article 19 which seeks

in the UK called Article 19 which seeks to preserve Free Speech the general

to preserve Free Speech the general statement released in 1982 was one and a

statement released in 1982 was one and a half pages long they released an updated

half pages long they released an updated general statement much more recently

general statement much more recently than that sometime in the 2000s it may

than that sometime in the 2000s it may have been 2006 2009 I can't remember the

have been 2006 2009 I can't remember the exact date it was 32 pages long

exact date it was 32 pages long so this field is getting is obviously

so this field is getting is obviously very complex

very complex um two final comments uh you said in

um two final comments uh you said in your experiments Mikhail that you had

your experiments Mikhail that you had um uh differentiated between people who

um uh differentiated between people who had been exposed to hate speech and

had been exposed to hate speech and people who hadn't before I found that

people who hadn't before I found that very interesting because I think it's

very interesting because I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to find

becoming increasingly difficult to find people who say they haven't been exposed

people who say they haven't been exposed to hate speech the surveys I've just in

to hate speech the surveys I've just in fact conducted a new survey myself which

fact conducted a new survey myself which is not published yet but the incidents

is not published yet but the incidents that we asked as a as an entry question

that we asked as a as an entry question to the survey have you either been

to the survey have you either been targeted by or witnessed hate speech

targeted by or witnessed hate speech um online in the last 12 months and we

um online in the last 12 months and we had five countries Australia New Zealand

had five countries Australia New Zealand Canada US UK

Canada US UK um 40 percent

um 40 percent said yes

said yes 40 percent

40 percent it's the highest result I've ever seen

it's the highest result I've ever seen actually and we're expecting it was

actually and we're expecting it was counterintuitive we were expecting to

counterintuitive we were expecting to get a much we used a narrow definition a

get a much we used a narrow definition a tight definition we're expecting to get

tight definition we're expecting to get a smaller result than other surveys and

a smaller result than other surveys and we got a higher result than other

we got a higher result than other surveys and the only reason like and

surveys and the only reason like and then we could we controlled for false

then we could we controlled for false positives by asking people the ground on

positives by asking people the ground on which they believed that hate speech had

which they believed that hate speech had occurred and so we took out what we

occurred and so we took out what we described as false positives and we

described as false positives and we still ended up with 40 which I think is

still ended up with 40 which I think is extraordinary

extraordinary um and then finally just to conclude um

um and then finally just to conclude um I completely agree with you that legal

I completely agree with you that legal regulation ought not to be the only

regulation ought not to be the only approach and in some cases I'm not I'm

approach and in some cases I'm not I'm not even the primary approach and I'm a

not even the primary approach and I'm a big fan of the civil law approach that

big fan of the civil law approach that we have in Australia which is quite

we have in Australia which is quite different from the criminal law approach

different from the criminal law approach in many other countries we have criminal

in many other countries we have criminal laws too but they're almost never used

laws too but they're almost never used six times since 1989 so overwhelmingly

six times since 1989 so overwhelmingly in Australia it's the Civil laws that

in Australia it's the Civil laws that are used which allows you to complain to

are used which allows you to complain to a human rights Authority and it's a very

a human rights Authority and it's a very very very different approach

very very different approach um so I've I think that legal regulation

um so I've I think that legal regulation is part of the toolkit but I absolutely

is part of the toolkit but I absolutely agree with you that it's not the

agree with you that it's not the entirety of the toolkit and that other

entirety of the toolkit and that other um elements are needed the problem I

um elements are needed the problem I have however there are lots of issues

have however there are lots of issues but but I do have a problem with relying

but but I do have a problem with relying on counter speech because it places an

on counter speech because it places an unfair burden on targets to respond it

unfair burden on targets to respond it can be their allies who respond it

can be their allies who respond it doesn't have to be targets themselves

doesn't have to be targets themselves who respond but it places an unsecure

who respond but it places an unsecure burden on those targets who feel that

burden on those targets who feel that they're empowered they're compelled to

they're empowered they're compelled to respond and also it overrides that

respond and also it overrides that constitutive silencing idea that I

constitutive silencing idea that I talked about before so it's not a you

talked about before so it's not a you know we're not starting from a Level

know we're not starting from a Level Playing Field if people are already

Playing Field if people are already feeling those kind of pressures then

feeling those kind of pressures then it's more difficult for them to engage

it's more difficult for them to engage in counter speech but thank you

in counter speech but thank you crazy

crazy thank you for those insightful comments

thank you for those insightful comments sorry let me get back to the mic thank

sorry let me get back to the mic thank you for those insightful comments and

you for those insightful comments and now I want to invite you Mikhail to

now I want to invite you Mikhail to speak about what um you heard and the

speak about what um you heard and the thoughts you have reflecting on

thoughts you have reflecting on Professor Gilbert's um presentation

Professor Gilbert's um presentation [Music]

[Music] um thank you very much um I I think that

um thank you very much um I I think that President Goldberg really um

President Goldberg really um um showed some very important

um showed some very important limitations of what uh psychology how

limitations of what uh psychology how psychology also could could contribute

psychology also could could contribute to this distinction to this debate of

to this distinction to this debate of hate speech versus uh free speech and

hate speech versus uh free speech and even considering my own research that

even considering my own research that that I've been talking about here I

that I've been talking about here I really think that one of these big

really think that one of these big limitations is about establishing

limitations is about establishing causality I've shown you some

causality I've shown you some experimental studies but of course

experimental studies but of course they're problematic also for ethical

they're problematic also for ethical grounds right so exposing people to hate

grounds right so exposing people to hate speech for a long time and when I said

speech for a long time and when I said that we compared them to a group which

that we compared them to a group which was not previously exposed you're

was not previously exposed you're absolutely right that these people are

absolutely right that these people are probably also exposed outside of the

probably also exposed outside of the laboratory right but basically we didn't

laboratory right but basically we didn't expose them within this

expose them within this training phase right in the in the in

training phase right in the in the in the study and this is what also we

the study and this is what also we observe in in um our

observe in in um our survey studies that we have very very

survey studies that we have very very large proportion of the of the

large proportion of the of the population which is exposed to hate

population which is exposed to hate speech and after this so-called

speech and after this so-called immigration crisis uh in in Europe in

immigration crisis uh in in Europe in 2015-2016 which was basically a large

2015-2016 which was basically a large anti-immigrant Panic rather than a

anti-immigrant Panic rather than a crisis it was just very much a a crisis

crisis it was just very much a a crisis of hate speech rather than anything else

of hate speech rather than anything else we uh at that time we did studies of

we uh at that time we did studies of adolescence and we found that we didn't

adolescence and we found that we didn't ask them about hate speech because in

ask them about hate speech because in Poland everybody would say that they are

Poland everybody would say that they are they are experience hate speech they

they are experience hate speech they would say that they experience

would say that they experience anti-polish or anti-christian hate

anti-polish or anti-christian hate speech right so anti-majority hate

speech right so anti-majority hate speech so uh we never ask this question

speech so uh we never ask this question like that but we present examples of

like that but we present examples of statements that were considered to be

statements that were considered to be offensive by minorities themselves so in

offensive by minorities themselves so in all of these studies we did this we we

all of these studies we did this we we are doing this kind of pre-testing with

are doing this kind of pre-testing with minority groups where we present them

minority groups where we present them with certain statements and we pick only

with certain statements and we pick only the one ones that are considered to them

the one ones that are considered to them very harmful based on their very harmful

very harmful based on their very harmful to their Collective identity to their to

to their Collective identity to their to their to their Collective well-being and

their to their Collective well-being and and then we present those statements to

and then we present those statements to to majority group members or to to

to majority group members or to to minorities again and we asked them how

minorities again and we asked them how often they were exposed to that and in

often they were exposed to that and in 2016 when we looked at this anti-muslim

2016 when we looked at this anti-muslim islamophobic hate speech I remember that

islamophobic hate speech I remember that there was I think 76 or 80 percent of

there was I think 76 or 80 percent of young people who said that they have

young people who said that they have witnessed that uh on the internet uh

witnessed that uh on the internet uh recently so from that time we thought

recently so from that time we thought okay this is just just everybody yes so

okay this is just just everybody yes so everybody's immersed in this reality

everybody's immersed in this reality full of of of hate speech so of course

full of of of hate speech so of course this is hard now to create good control

this is hard now to create good control conditions right in our experimental

conditions right in our experimental studies because everybody has witnessed

studies because everybody has witnessed that we try to do some work with

that we try to do some work with artificial groups now but but again I

artificial groups now but but again I have some problems whether doing

have some problems whether doing research on using artificial groups and

research on using artificial groups and artificial scenarios is really

artificial scenarios is really legitimate when we are when we try to to

legitimate when we are when we try to to to develop theories about the real world

to develop theories about the real world events about real world social issues

events about real world social issues um

um and and finally our reactions you

and and finally our reactions you mentioned now in the discussion uh in

mentioned now in the discussion uh in this discussion that uh uh civil uh uh

this discussion that uh uh civil uh uh code and civil uh uh

code and civil uh uh legislations can be can be more

legislations can be can be more effective than uh than um

effective than uh than um a panel code in this case and

I have some problems with it living in a country in which

country in which authoritarian party which uses hate

authoritarian party which uses hate speeches in power currently because this

speeches in power currently because this for example strategic litigations

for example strategic litigations against hate speech are quite rare they

against hate speech are quite rare they still have been effective because we

still have been effective because we have independent Judiciary that's okay

have independent Judiciary that's okay but it costs a lot right so not many

but it costs a lot right so not many non-profit organizations can really

non-profit organizations can really afford to do that in a really effective

afford to do that in a really effective way but on the contrary the so-called

way but on the contrary the so-called Congress the governmental

Congress the governmental non-governmental organizations so the

non-governmental organizations so the ngos that are supported by the

ngos that are supported by the government they are using a lot of

government they are using a lot of strategic litigation against the people

strategic litigation against the people who are trying to combat hate speech and

who are trying to combat hate speech and to even for after one of the conferences

to even for after one of the conferences where I presented some examples of this

where I presented some examples of this anti-semitic hate speech I've been sued

anti-semitic hate speech I've been sued by the arriving extremist cartoonist for

by the arriving extremist cartoonist for using his cartoons as examples of

using his cartoons as examples of anti-semite season and it it ended with

anti-semite season and it it ended with uh two years of trial and it was a Civil

uh two years of trial and it was a Civil Trial it was not a panel trial it was a

Trial it was not a panel trial it was a Civil Trial it was basically a lawsuit

Civil Trial it was basically a lawsuit uh and uh I mean the the the the final

uh and uh I mean the the the the final judgment was that I can uh that this as

judgment was that I can uh that this as a researcher of hate speech of course I

a researcher of hate speech of course I can use the chronographic material and

can use the chronographic material and uh and uh so I didn't have to pay

uh and uh so I didn't have to pay anything ultimately and luckily I had a

anything ultimately and luckily I had a pro bono

pro bono um lawyers who who helped me in this

um lawyers who who helped me in this case but uh this might be very dangerous

case but uh this might be very dangerous to the to to people who are actually

to the to to people who are actually trying to confront this in a society

trying to confront this in a society when there is a completely unequal uh

when there is a completely unequal uh access to resources where you have a

access to resources where you have a government which is uh uh which is uh on

government which is uh uh which is uh on the side of of of haters uh the

the side of of of haters uh the government would support different uh uh

government would support different uh uh uh people and non-profit organizations

uh people and non-profit organizations in in such lawsuits so it is complicated

in in such lawsuits so it is complicated and and uh I I just hope that that

and and uh I I just hope that that um

um this is a problem right because if we

this is a problem right because if we have a government which is uh supporting

have a government which is uh supporting hate speech and using hate speech in

hate speech and using hate speech in order to get their electoral support

order to get their electoral support then confrontation questions become more

then confrontation questions become more and more and more difficult and this is

and more and more difficult and this is why I thought about some forms of Civic

why I thought about some forms of Civic Civic activism and of course there's a

Civic activism and of course there's a common thinking that

common thinking that um that uh you shouldn't feed the trolls

um that uh you shouldn't feed the trolls right so any interaction with the hater

right so any interaction with the hater is dangerous somehow because it feeds

is dangerous somehow because it feeds the troll but uh we found something

the troll but uh we found something different actually that in many cases

different actually that in many cases those haters are living in their bubble

those haters are living in their bubble they are not really interacting with

they are not really interacting with anybody else than themselves

anybody else than themselves or the members of their groups and

or the members of their groups and um just breaking this isolation can

um just breaking this isolation can somehow have some positive effect can

somehow have some positive effect can lead to change in the behavior and we

lead to change in the behavior and we have a recent uh article in aggressive

have a recent uh article in aggressive behavior when we are showing some

behavior when we are showing some intervention that that shows that that

intervention that that shows that that you can actually reduce the the activity

you can actually reduce the the activity uh hostile activity of the online haters

uh hostile activity of the online haters uh uh adjustment right but of course

uh uh adjustment right but of course it's costly and I don't I don't I don't

it's costly and I don't I don't I don't want to put this burden on anybody

want to put this burden on anybody because it's a psychological cost but uh

because it's a psychological cost but uh but if you feel uh psychologically

but if you feel uh psychologically secure sometimes it's good to interact

secure sometimes it's good to interact with those people who are posting

with those people who are posting um hateful comments on internet and of

um hateful comments on internet and of course masses of them are just bots so

course masses of them are just bots so you know interaction with them would not

you know interaction with them would not make any sense but uh but with those who

make any sense but uh but with those who aren't just real people

aren't just real people the interaction might make sense thank

the interaction might make sense thank you

you fantastic insights and I could listen to

fantastic insights and I could listen to you guys for another 16 minutes but I do

you guys for another 16 minutes but I do want to tokenly comment as a panel chair

want to tokenly comment as a panel chair and then invite the audience to engage

and then invite the audience to engage I'll just mention

I'll just mention um some of you know but I also have been

um some of you know but I also have been targeted with a slap suit from a violent

targeted with a slap suit from a violent extremist group because I labeled them a

extremist group because I labeled them a violent extremist group and they were

violent extremist group and they were based in the United States and they

based in the United States and they um you know sent that letter through to

um you know sent that letter through to us here in Australia and I believe the

us here in Australia and I believe the university shelled out thousands of

university shelled out thousands of dollars to retain uh an American lawyer

dollars to retain uh an American lawyer a free speech expert and I'm told that

a free speech expert and I'm told that this is increasingly common and that

this is increasingly common and that academics are seeing more and more of it

academics are seeing more and more of it so just the ways that groups use the the

so just the ways that groups use the the kind of laws to try and target the

kind of laws to try and target the people that speak about them ironically

people that speak about them ironically free speech

free speech um Advocates who use the laws so-called

um Advocates who use the laws so-called anyways I could go on about that but I

anyways I could go on about that but I guess I wanted to invite both of you to

guess I wanted to invite both of you to reflect on the question of power that

reflect on the question of power that you've both mentioned because that's

you've both mentioned because that's something that you haven't brought or

something that you haven't brought or centered I thought in your analysis but

centered I thought in your analysis but Kathy mentioned that in your opinion it

Kathy mentioned that in your opinion it would be inappropriate to consider as

would be inappropriate to consider as hate speech an advantaged group that you

hate speech an advantaged group that you know almost by definition you were

know almost by definition you were saying and I think you alluded to this

saying and I think you alluded to this also I mean all hate speech or the

also I mean all hate speech or the concept of hate speech shouldn't be used

concept of hate speech shouldn't be used to extend to people who are expressing

to extend to people who are expressing hostility to Advantage groups you know

hostility to Advantage groups you know in my own research which focuses on

in my own research which focuses on conflict and violence I would say that

conflict and violence I would say that it is definitely possible to have

it is definitely possible to have violent soliciting speech directed at

violent soliciting speech directed at advantaged groups and so I was just

advantaged groups and so I was just wondering what you would think about

wondering what you would think about that and how you would how you would

that and how you would how you would engage that boundary

engage that boundary um in your in your theorizing or in your

um in your in your theorizing or in your data or both or whether you just

data or both or whether you just wouldn't touch it with a barge poll

wouldn't touch it with a barge poll um so I'm going to ask you Kath to come

um so I'm going to ask you Kath to come back to the screen and um and riff about

back to the screen and um and riff about that and then while these folks are

that and then while these folks are speaking I invite our audience to think

speaking I invite our audience to think about their insightful question

about their insightful question thank you so that's a great question in

thank you so that's a great question in my view there is a lot of really

my view there is a lot of really horrible disgusting speech in the world

horrible disgusting speech in the world that doesn't constitute hate speech so

that doesn't constitute hate speech so violence are leading speed eliciting

violence are leading speed eliciting speech as you described isn't is

speech as you described isn't is incitement it's a criminal offense and

incitement it's a criminal offense and it's horrible for lots of reasons and I

it's horrible for lots of reasons and I wouldn't condone it and I wouldn't

wouldn't condone it and I wouldn't um support it and I wouldn't say it

um support it and I wouldn't say it should be completely free of consequence

should be completely free of consequence but it should be in that particular

but it should be in that particular example that you use it the consequence

example that you use it the consequence should be that it was incitement of a

should be that it was incitement of a crime is if it's violence inciting

crime is if it's violence inciting speech it's inciting assault

speech it's inciting assault that's a criminal offense and so I'd

that's a criminal offense and so I'd like to see it treated as such yeah

like to see it treated as such yeah um so yeah I did imply and in fact M off

um so yeah I did imply and in fact M off the view that by definition hate speech

the view that by definition hate speech isn't what you use to describe

isn't what you use to describe um

um even really nasty horrible speech that's

even really nasty horrible speech that's against a dominant group because that

against a dominant group because that takes away from the systemic

takes away from the systemic discrimination aspect of it that renders

discrimination aspect of it that renders certain people vulnerable to what we

certain people vulnerable to what we might call hate speech I appreciate very

might call hate speech I appreciate very much that out in the world that is not

much that out in the world that is not understood at all and that people use

understood at all and that people use the word hate and haters

the word hate and haters um not in the way Michelle did but in

um not in the way Michelle did but in the in a very capacious way and so

the in a very capacious way and so people talk about being subjected to

people talk about being subjected to hate because of you know I don't know

hate because of you know I don't know everything from the color of their hair

everything from the color of their hair to you know redheads for example or

to you know redheads for example or um you know or the way they dress and in

um you know or the way they dress and in the absence of a connection to systemic

the absence of a connection to systemic discrimination I'd describe that as

discrimination I'd describe that as something else that might well be mean

something else that might well be mean and nasty and horrible and really

and nasty and horrible and really unpleasant psychologically for the

unpleasant psychologically for the Target to experience but it doesn't fall

Target to experience but it doesn't fall within that particular category in my

within that particular category in my opinion of Hope speech otherwise the the

opinion of Hope speech otherwise the the category becomes too large and and

category becomes too large and and because I'm a supporter of some legal

because I'm a supporter of some legal intervention although I appreciate very

intervention although I appreciate very much what you said Mahal and it's

much what you said Mahal and it's obviously very difficult in the

obviously very difficult in the situation you describe is very difficult

situation you describe is very difficult and I don't support it obviously

and I don't support it obviously um that that is that that is a very

um that that is that that is a very difficult situation but because

difficult situation but because generally speaking I do I'm not a person

generally speaking I do I'm not a person who says that laws have no place in this

who says that laws have no place in this space therefore I believe very very

space therefore I believe very very strongly that the laws need to be

strongly that the laws need to be crafted as narrowly and as specifically

crafted as narrowly and as specifically as possible to avoid abuse of the law

as possible to avoid abuse of the law and to avoid over breadth of the law

and to avoid over breadth of the law and so the things you're describing are

and so the things you're describing are just abuse of the law right there's no

just abuse of the law right there's no way that hate speech um Provisions

way that hate speech um Provisions should be used by dominant groups

should be used by dominant groups in again you know in the ways that

in again you know in the ways that you've described and also similarly the

you've described and also similarly the slap suits although they're not designed

slap suits although they're not designed to protect Free Speech but they're a

to protect Free Speech but they're a deliberate strategy slap suits there's

deliberate strategy slap suits there's been there's plenty of scholarship on

been there's plenty of scholarship on SLAP suits and then being used as a

SLAP suits and then being used as a deliberate strategy to silence people

deliberate strategy to silence people yeah

yeah and we can't

and we can't foreign

status groups they have powerful groups have uh

have uh um the effects of hate speech on these

um the effects of hate speech on these groups would be much less pronounced of

groups would be much less pronounced of course because I mean you know if

course because I mean you know if somebody offends me as being I don't

somebody offends me as being I don't know Caucasian male it you know it just

know Caucasian male it you know it just you know it's not it's not affecting me

you know it's not it's not affecting me because of the high status of the high

because of the high status of the high power of my group because I mean this is

power of my group because I mean this is what we know from social identity Theory

what we know from social identity Theory right the high status or high power of

right the high status or high power of certain group gives you a lot of

certain group gives you a lot of Psychological Resources right of your

Psychological Resources right of your advantage over others and uh for example

advantage over others and uh for example leading to to to to health mental health

leading to to to to health mental health consequences also you know being a

consequences also you know being a member of of Advantage group is

member of of Advantage group is completely different situation from

completely different situation from being a member of this Advantage group

being a member of this Advantage group and and and this is exactly what I

and and and this is exactly what I consider to be this constitute to a

consider to be this constitute to a constitutive aspect that that President

constitutive aspect that that President galber mentioned that it puts the group

galber mentioned that it puts the group that is otherwise

that is otherwise is otherwise discriminated into even in

is otherwise discriminated into even in more inferior position right hate speech

more inferior position right hate speech itself builds the status inequalities

itself builds the status inequalities right so it's not a consequence of HP

right so it's not a consequence of HP but it's it's inherited and I very like

but it's it's inherited and I very like this this uh this term because it it

this this uh this term because it it shows the nature of hate speech so not

shows the nature of hate speech so not something to be addressed in

something to be addressed in psychological studies but something

psychological studies but something which is a nature of the of the of this

which is a nature of the of the of this phenomenon itself that it puts that it

phenomenon itself that it puts that it enhances this inequality right so I

enhances this inequality right so I think that this is a very important in

think that this is a very important in this in this power discussion thanks

this in this power discussion thanks wonderful now it's our tradition at uq

wonderful now it's our tradition at uq to invite a student to ask the first

to invite a student to ask the first question if there are any students that

question if there are any students that would like to ask a question this time

would like to ask a question this time is for you and then our panel will

is for you and then our panel will reflect on it I think that's you Chris

reflect on it I think that's you Chris in the chat right that's not someone

in the chat right that's not someone asking a question

asking a question after a decent interval to allow the

after a decent interval to allow the students if any to put their hands up we

students if any to put their hands up we will now oh well done well done welcome

will now oh well done well done welcome yeah well thank you uh

yeah well thank you uh it was nice to ask a question when it's

it was nice to ask a question when it's been invited

been invited for last year but we've heard about the

for last year but we've heard about the compelling arguments like from the

compelling arguments like from the psychology psychological side that the

psychology psychological side that the Constitutional argument political

Constitutional argument political science it actually brings too like

science it actually brings too like there are actual effects to take speech

there are actual effects to take speech on individuals

what's up would it be beneficial with that

that could be beneficial to be regulated

could be beneficial to be regulated based on educational experiences

wonderful I'll just repeat that in case could you hear that Michael you could

could you hear that Michael you could hear it no no unfortunately not so yeah

hear it no no unfortunately not so yeah if somebody wants to next questions come

if somebody wants to next questions come come closer right the question was um

come closer right the question was um from what uh what sounded like a

from what uh what sounded like a political science student that it's

political science student that it's fantastic to see that the psychological

fantastic to see that the psychological evidence is very much in line with the

evidence is very much in line with the concept from political science that hate

concept from political science that hate speech can in and of itself be you know

speech can in and of itself be you know harmful constitutive of harm and um can

harmful constitutive of harm and um can this be brought into the policy space so

this be brought into the policy space so that this evidence is used to inform

that this evidence is used to inform policy a comment I might make just while

policy a comment I might make just while I'm speaking is that um the minority

I'm speaking is that um the minority stress literature in the United States

stress literature in the United States has been used in policy to regulate

has been used in policy to regulate discrimination in the minority stress

discrimination in the minority stress literature as shown

literature as shown um changing illness and mortality

um changing illness and mortality patterns as a function of discrimination

patterns as a function of discrimination in laws and I wonder if that's something

in laws and I wonder if that's something that you guys would connect to but over

that you guys would connect to but over to you now to comment on the student's

to you now to comment on the student's question rather than my point

so it is already um in countries that have hate speech

um in countries that have hate speech regulation or at least countries that

regulation or at least countries that have hate speech regulation that is

have hate speech regulation that is directed generally speaking towards the

directed generally speaking towards the protection of minorities like Australia

protection of minorities like Australia um it is already so that the reason that

um it is already so that the reason that that though there was obviously a big

that though there was obviously a big argument around Free Speech when these

argument around Free Speech when these laws were introduced

laws were introduced um and there are big exemptions in the

um and there are big exemptions in the laws designed to help protect free

laws designed to help protect free speech so for example in the Queensland

speech so for example in the Queensland law there is an exemption for fair

law there is an exemption for fair reporting so journalism is protected

reporting so journalism is protected artistic speech scientific Endeavor

artistic speech scientific Endeavor and public and general public debate

and public and general public debate there are huge exemptions in these laws

there are huge exemptions in these laws and they're designed to protect Free

and they're designed to protect Free Speech but the recognition in countries

Speech but the recognition in countries like Australia if you go back to the

like Australia if you go back to the debates around the introduction of these

debates around the introduction of these laws in Australia in each jurisdiction

laws in Australia in each jurisdiction and also federally when happened in 1995

and also federally when happened in 1995 first one happened in 1989 all of those

first one happened in 1989 all of those debates recognize the harms of have

debates recognize the harms of have speech they don't use the word

speech they don't use the word constitutive but they all recognize

constitutive but they all recognize those harms and that was the pro that

those harms and that was the pro that was the central justification we had in

was the central justification we had in 1990 21 in Australia a national inquiry

1990 21 in Australia a national inquiry into racist violence which absolutely

into racist violence which absolutely put the argument that and you still get

put the argument that and you still get the report in the library absolutely put

the report in the library absolutely put the argument that there was particularly

the argument that there was particularly for indigenous Australians but also for

for indigenous Australians but also for immigrant communities that there was a

immigrant communities that there was a causal relationship between the verbal

causal relationship between the verbal abuse they suffered and the other forms

abuse they suffered and the other forms of discrimination that they suffered

of discrimination that they suffered including violence obviously the focus

including violence obviously the focus of the report was on violence and that

of the report was on violence and that was one of the reports that led to the

was one of the reports that led to the federal amendment of legislation in 1995

federal amendment of legislation in 1995 that gave us the federal rate the

that gave us the federal rate the section 18c of the federal racial

section 18c of the federal racial discrimination act some of that is now

discrimination act some of that is now being undermined by as mihar said the

being undermined by as mihar said the fact that dominant groups are now

fact that dominant groups are now claiming victimization

claiming victimization so they're claiming discrimination

so they're claiming discrimination they're claiming victimization they're

they're claiming victimization they're claiming their free speeches being

claiming their free speeches being imperiled by being disagreed with

imperiled by being disagreed with don't I just can't make sense of that

don't I just can't make sense of that argument that somehow if you disagree

argument that somehow if you disagree with somebody you're abrogating their

with somebody you're abrogating their free speech rights but that's what they

free speech rights but that's what they posit so the whole idea that you know

posit so the whole idea that you know that's why the systemic discrimination

that's why the systemic discrimination connection is is important one of the

connection is is important one of the reasons why it's important but I think

reasons why it's important but I think what we're seeing now sort of 20 30

what we're seeing now sort of 20 30 years on in Australia the first law was

years on in Australia the first law was in 1989 so we've had these laws for a

in 1989 so we've had these laws for a really long time and the risk now is not

really long time and the risk now is not that they don't appreciate that the harm

that they don't appreciate that the harm they do the risk now is that dominant

they do the risk now is that dominant groups are claiming their hand and I

groups are claiming their hand and I don't support that claim at all

yeah so I think there's such policies are uh also visible in my country and we

are uh also visible in my country and we have uh we have actually two articles of

have uh we have actually two articles of the panel code that uh prevent hate

the panel code that uh prevent hate speech uh it's not about history but

speech uh it's not about history but um uh derogating uh offending People

um uh derogating uh offending People based on their ethnicity religion Etc

based on their ethnicity religion Etc the problem is when you have uh

the problem is when you have uh promoters of hate speech and power

promoters of hate speech and power because our prosecutors and our police

because our prosecutors and our police is never using this particular article

is never using this particular article of Penal Code so this is basically a

of Penal Code so this is basically a dead law I don't know if you can say so

dead law I don't know if you can say so in English but the law that doesn't

in English but the law that doesn't really operate it is you could probably

really operate it is you could probably use it but but much depends on the

use it but but much depends on the behavior of prosecutors and police so

behavior of prosecutors and police so this is why it's very much shaped by by

this is why it's very much shaped by by Democratic processes and by people

Democratic processes and by people selectoral decisions right

selectoral decisions right thanks

thanks well

well um I think that even though I'm sure

um I think that even though I'm sure that there are insightful comments from

that there are insightful comments from academics um we might not need to

academics um we might not need to respect our panel's time because we are

respect our panel's time because we are coming up to 6 30.

coming up to 6 30. um I would like to invite everyone here

um I would like to invite everyone here to join me in applauding um the panel

to join me in applauding um the panel what a brilliant talk for both of you

what a brilliant talk for both of you thank you so much for your time

thank you very much and and if anybody has some questions just uh write me

has some questions just uh write me right I mean I can send my email maybe

right I mean I can send my email maybe on chat and that's our winning friends

on chat and that's our winning friends can distribute it so that we can

can distribute it so that we can continue a conversation yeah and if you

continue a conversation yeah and if you take a picture or a screenshot of um

take a picture or a screenshot of um mikhail's name you'll be able to find

mikhail's name you'll be able to find his email online because we're going to

his email online because we're going to log out of the chat um fairly fairly

log out of the chat um fairly fairly quickly but um thank you both thank you

quickly but um thank you both thank you for uh the audience for coming on a very

for uh the audience for coming on a very late time and um it's in the high 30s

late time and um it's in the high 30s here and can I say when we started all

here and can I say when we started all of us in the room were experiencing a

of us in the room were experiencing a you know a lot of heat in Australia

you know a lot of heat in Australia um you know physically as well as

um you know physically as well as morally and emotionally

rumors I'm going to log [Music]

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:PEPSS seminar 2023 #1: The boundary between free speech and hate speech – Louis, Gelber, Bilewicz

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
PEPSS seminar 2023 #1: The boundary between free speech and hate speech – Louis, Gelber, Bilewicz