Tracking Hate Speech Acts as Incitement to Genocide in International Criminal Law

Abstract

In this article, I argue that we need a better understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the current debates in international law surrounding hate speech and inchoate crimes. I construct a theoretical basis for speech acts as incitement to genocide, distinguishing these speech acts from speech as genocide and speech denying genocide by integrating international law with concepts drawn from speech act theory and moral philosophy. I use the case drawn on by many commentators in this area of international criminal law, the trial of media executives for the roles they played in the Rwandan genocide through public speech acts by media entities insulting an ethnic group or advocating violence against an ethnic group. Each of these men were institutional leaders and were charged with using their positions within Rwandan society to distribute what I call genocidal hate speech, genocidal incitement speech, and genocidal participation speech. I argue for a distinction between these three types of speech, and a difference in individual criminal liability for the dissemination of each type of speech. I also argue that there should be a difference in individual criminal liability for speech acts within the context of an ongoing or recent genocide, and speech acts that can be separated from a site of mass violence.

Human Rights by Design: The Responsibilities of Social Media Platforms to Address Gender‐Based Violence Online

“…Human rights frameworks provide a foundation for basic rights and protections that is an important counterpoint to the false dichotomies between freedom of speech and protection from abuse promoted by libertarian logics. Human rights prohibitions against discrimination, hate speech, and incitement to violence make clear that rights to freedom of expression and conduct carry associated responsibilities not to impinge on the rights of others (Fyfe, ). These are challenges that human rights discourse and law have had to deal with, and there is a large body of existing knowledge that emphasizes context‐specific analysis and proportionate responses to resolve real conflicts between rights where necessary.…”

Comparative and Dogmatic Issues of Hate Speech - Traditional and Modern Acts of Commission

“…It is a speech that verbally attacks a person or a group of persons because of different origins, races, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other criteria. 8 It is known that words can cause many things, and one of the effects is that they can cause significant evil. Words can cause direct psychological harm, but they can also directly or indirectly affect causing physical violence.…”

Hate Speech in Social Media and Its Effects on the LGBT Community: A Review of the Current Research

“…Previous research has shown that hate speech can have a detrimental impact on the targeted individuals or groups, ranging from causing psychological harm (Nielsen, 2002;Maitra, 2012;Boeckmann & Liew, 2002) to inciting violence (Muller & Schwarz, 2018;Fyfe, 2017). Hate speech offends, assaults the dignity, invades the autonomy, creates emotional distress, affects the personal development of the victims, and generally, by disrespecting the cultural diversity, undermines the democratic process (Brown, 2015).…”