Hate Spin: The Twin Political Strategies of Religious Incitement and Offense-Taking

Abstract

Religious intolerance manifests itself periodically in ways that test democracies' commitment to freedom of expression. Responding to this challenge requires a conceptual clarity that is often lacking. This article proposes a corrective lens in the form of a new concept, hate spin. Hate spin absorbs the familiar concept of hate speech, or incitement, and combines it with the less understood strategy of offense‐taking or manufactured indignation. The two sides of hate spin—incitement and offense‐taking—are used by political entrepreneurs to mobilize supporters and coerce targeted groups. Incitement may warrant legal intervention, but censorship is a counterproductive response to offense. The article explicates the concept of hate spin, identifies its key characteristics, and suggests directions for further research.

Media and YouTube Appeal in Social Movement Mobilization: The Case of Anti-Tourism Incident

“…They also do not care about the wars and the disastrous incidents that are occurring throughout the world. This example supports the argument of George (2016), who states that those who exercise hate propaganda present their enemies as inhumane persons.…”

“…It is treated more like an animal, with no ethical values and undeserving of kindness. Subsequently, the hate propagandists and their allies are assured that the others are the provokers of conflicts (George, 2016). In addition to this new cyber reality, during the past years, there have been many cases in which news media organizations mobilized the public by creating messages of hate speech.…”

Understating South Asia interculturally and communicatively: What the contemporary scholarship tells us

“…Another aspect that received scholarly attention was hate speech and hate spin in mediated environments. These articles documented how the application of hate speech and hate spin often caused incitement of hatred, as well as how they coerced targeted groups and mobilized supporters in both online and offline spaces (George, 2016, 2017). Moreover, the manuscripts problematized the aspects of freedom of expression and its limits, and argued that in terms of exercising legal restriction, the current legal provisions were insufficient, especially for highly organized campaigns; and argued that the existing laws were largely counter‐productive as they often empower the intolerance sections of society.…”

Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet

“…He was out to kill in service to his white nationalist ideology (Siegel 2015;Potok 2015 Together, these cases demonstrate that online hate speech and hate threats need to be taken seriously. When harmful speech is closely linked to harmful action, to the extent that one does not know where the harmful speech ends and the harmful action begins, those speech-acts do not warrant protection (Cohen-Almagor 2006;George 2017). Incitement warrants legal intervention.…”