Martyrs for Free Speech? Disentangling the Effects of Legal Prosecution of Anti-immigration Politicians on their Electoral Support

Jacobs, Laura; Spanje, Joost van

doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09581-6

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors demonstrate that such assessments vary by party (between 2.9 and 3.9 on a 6-point scale) and have important effects on voting preferences. A second set of studies, also from the Dutch context, goes even further and poses additional questions about a specific far-right party's ‘right to exert power’ and its acceptance of ‘social norms in our society’ (Jacobs and van Spanje 2021; van Spanje and Azrout 2019; van Spanje and Azrout 2021). The results show that legitimacy perceptions are an important mediator linking exposure to stigmatization and the prosecution of a party member for hate speech.…”

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?

Kölln

2023

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on negative partisanship and affective polarization shows that wholesale rejections of individual parties are a common and growing phenomenon. This article offers a novel perspective on assessments of parties by considering citizens' legitimacy perceptions of political parties as institutional players. Combining research on political parties and public opinion, I develop a theoretical framework that explains how parties' characteristics shape their perception as legitimate institutional players. I argue that governing experience, age, ideology, and democratic behaviour provide informational cues to citizens about how democratically dangerous a party is. To test my argument, I fielded a cross-sectional survey in seven West European countries and a large-scale survey experiment. The results consistently show that citizens use party-level cues such as ideological moderation and democratic behaviour to form party legitimacy perceptions. The findings have important public opinion implications for political parties and their institutional role in democracies.

show abstract

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?

Kölln

2023

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Against the background of these debates, it is curious that political science has not paid more attention to the question of whether and why citizens think they can express themselves freely. While recent work has begun to investigate “campus cancel culture” (e.g., Revers and Traunmüller 2020 ; Traunmüller 2022 ; Norris 2021 ; Kaufmann 2021 ) and has looked into the democratic effects of hate speech regulation (e.g., Van Spanje and De Vreese 2015 , Jacobs and Van Spanje 2021 ) the more fundamental question of what explains citizens’ subjective freedom of speech remains largely unanswered (but see Gibson 1992 , 1993 and Gibson and Sutherland 2020 for the United States).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective Freedom of Speech: Why Do Citizens Think They Cannot Speak Freely?

Menzner¹,

Traunmüller

2022

Polit Vierteljahresschr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide the first systematic research into the origins of subjective freedom of speech in Germany. Relying on the GLES 2021 Cross-Section Pre-Election Survey, which includes a newly designed survey item on subjective freedom of speech, we evaluate a whole range of plausible candidate hypotheses. First, we contribute to cumulative research by testing the explanatory factors in Gibson (1993)—citizens’ social class, their political involvement and political preferences, and their personality dispositions—for the German case. Second, we move beyond the state of the art and test three new hypotheses that reflect more recent political developments and arguments in the free speech debate: the role of social media, increasing political and social polarization, and the rise of populism. Importantly, all hypothesis tests reported in this paper have been preregistered prior to data collection. Our results reveal that three explanatory factors are significantly, consistently, and substantively related to subjective free speech in Germany: political preferences, populist attitudes, and identification with the Alternative for Germany party.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, previous studies have shown that support for freedom of speech (White & Crandall, 2017) and exposure to hate speech (Soral et al., 2017) led insults about outgroup members being seen as justified and acceptable. For instance, in most Western democratic countries like in Europe and the U.S, speakers invoke the right to freedom of speech to justify negative content or any political expression (see Jacobs & van Spanje, 2021; Pettersson, 2019; White & Crandall, 2017). Thus, with such strategy they could escape the accusation in spreading hate speech (Chiang, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying hate speech in societal context: When psychological factors are more important than contents

Putra

Mashuri

Nurhamida

2022

Anal Soc Iss & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested how Muslim participants identify speeches as hate speech or not, and whether they thought an apology from the speakers is needed. In Studies 1a (N = 209) and 1b (N = 183), participants were asked about a speech delivered by a prominent ingroup figure showed that hate, meta-hate, and collective narcissism tended to identify a prejudiced speech about outgroup members as not related to hate speech, and thus no apology is needed. Nonetheless, the resulting path was in contrast to participants who believe the outgroup nature as good. With similar predictors of Study 1, Study 2 (N = 191) showed that when participants were asked to identify a (non-harmful) speech about ingroup delivered by a minority outgroup member, there was an opposite path compared to Study 1. Across all findings, we argue that in the real-world setting, how a speech, with or without harmful contents, is identified depends on positive or negative views about ingroup and outgroup members by which it can dictate people's understanding and denial.

show abstract

Martyrs for Free Speech? Disentangling the Effects of Legal Prosecution of Anti-immigration Politicians on their Electoral Support

Cited by 8 publications

References 49 publications

When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?

When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?

Subjective Freedom of Speech: Why Do Citizens Think They Cannot Speak Freely?

Identifying hate speech in societal context: When psychological factors are more important than contents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About