Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counter Speech: Practices of Contradiction on Hate Speech and their Effects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contradiction Studies – Exploring the Field

Part of the book series: Contradiction Studies ((COSTU))

  • 359 Accesses

Abstract

Hate speech has physical and psychological consequences for the targeted individual, intimidates people to participate equally and fearlessly in public life, triggers mistrust and hostility between social groups, discourages participation in political deliberation and can incite, legitimize and/or coordinate open violence. Contradiction plays a pivotal role in the hate speech debate, because “speaking back” has been treated as an alternative to tackling the problem, assuming that “the best remedy for bad speech is more speech” and that “the best argument wins”. Based on the speech act theory and on the theory of communicative action, this paper addresses practices of hate and counter speech in the media. Such practices are illustrated in the case of the controversy surrounding the writer Oriana Fallaci and her islamophobic piece “The Rage and The Pride”, published a couple of weeks after the terror attack of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001. For the analysis, all articles published in the Italian press about the case were submitted to a content analysis (n = 74). Outcomes show not only different practices of contradiction, but also the limitations of counter-argumentation by tackling the problem, leading rather to polarisation than to refutation of hate speech.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Missing figures refer to articles without or ambivalent evaluations.

References

  • Anderson, Kathryn Freeman. 2013. “Diagnosing Discrimination: Stress from Perceived Racism and the Mental and Physical Health Effects.” Sociological Inquiry 83(1):55–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2012.00433.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, John L. 1971. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, Anat, and Ariadna Matamoros Fernández. 2016. “Hate Speech and Covert Discrimination on Social Media: Monitoring the Facebook Pages of Extreme-Right Political Parties in Spain.” International Journal of Communication 10(27):1167–1193. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3697. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Benesch, Susan. 2012. “Dangerous Speech: A Proposal to Prevent Group Violence.” http://www.worldpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Dangerous%20Speech%20Guidelines%20Benesch%20January%202012.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Benesch, Susan. 2014. “Countering Dangerous Speech: New Ideas for Genocide Prevention.” https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20140212-benesch-countering-dangerous-speech.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Bennett, Gary G., Kathleen Yaus Wolin, Elwood L. Robinson, Sherrye Fowler, and Christopher L. Edwards. 2005. “Perceived Racial/Ethnic Harassment and Tobacco Use among African American Young Adults.” American Journal of Public Health 95(2):238–240. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.037812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, Roger W., and Charles D. Elder. 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). 2013. General Recommendation No. 35. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD/C/GC/35&Lang=en. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2004. Understanding Words that Wound. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2009. “Four Observations About Hate Speech.” Wake Forest Law Review 44:353–370. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2401935. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Eisenberg, Marla E., Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, and Mary Story. 2003. “Associations of Weight-based Teasing and Emotional Well-being among Adolescents.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 157(8):733–738. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.157.8.733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallaci, Oriana. 2001. La rabbia e l’orgoglio. Corriere della Sera, 29 Sep 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallaci, Oriana. 2002. Die Wut und der Stolz. München: List.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, George. 1998. Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit: Ein Entwurf. München: Hanser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frère, Marie-Soleil. 2010. “After the Hate Media: Regulation in the DRC, Burundi and Rwanda.” Global Media and Communication 5(3):327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagliardone, Iginio, Mathi Pohjonen, Abdissa Serai, Zenebe Beyene, Gerawork Aynekulu, Tewodros Gebrewolde, Michael Seifu, Nicole Stremlau, Jonathan Bright, Mesfin Bekalu, and Mulatu Alemayehu Moges. 2015. “Mechachal. A Preliminary Assessment of Online Debates in Ethiopia (Report One): A Preliminary Assessment of Online Debates in Ethiopia.” SSRN. http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2105-10-01-report-1-final_optim.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Gelber, Katharine. 2002. Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, Jürgen. 2004. “Diskursanalyse als systematische Inhaltsanalyse. Die öffentliche Debatte über Abtreibungen in den USA und in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Vergleich.” In Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse, edited by Reiner Keller, Andreas Hierseland, Werner Schneider, and Willy Viehöver, 299–324. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, Jürgen, and Friedrich Neidhardt. 1991. “Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Ansätze.” In Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation: Beiträge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie, edited by Stefan Müller-Doohm and Klaus Neumann-Braun, 31–89. Oldenburg: BIS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gössmann, Elisabeth. 1996. Ob die Weiber Menschen seyn, oder nicht? München: Iudicium Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 2007. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, Daniel C. 1986. The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Ricci, Martin Tobias, Mona Jeffreys, Kiri Waldegrave, Saffron Karlsen, and James Nazroo. 2006. “Racism and Health: The Relationship between Experience of Racial Discrimination and Health in New Zealand.” Social Science & Medicine 63(6):1428–1441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, Steffen Kitty, Sybille Krämer, and Hannes Kuch. 2007. “Verletzende Worte. Eine Einleitung.” In Verletzende Worte. Die Grammatik sprachlicher Missachtung, edited by Steffen Kitty Herrmann, Sybille Krämer, and Hannes Kuch, 7–27. Bielefeld: transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Lawrence R. 2014. “Contradiction”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.

  • Hunt-Grubbe, Charlotte. 2007. “The elementary DNA of Dr Watson.” The Times, 14 Oct 2007. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-elementary-dna-of-dr-watson-gllb6w2vpdr. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Kepplinger, Hans Matthias. 1994. “Publizistische Konflikte. Begriffe, Ansätze, Ergebnisse.” In Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen, edited by Friedrich Neidhardt, 214–233. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepplinger, Hans Mathias. 2011. Realitätskonstruktionen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag / Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH Wiesbaden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kimotho, Stephen Gichuhi, and Rahab Njeri Nyaga. 2016. “Digitized Ethnic Hate Speech: Understanding Effects of Digital Media Hate Speech on Citizen Journalism in Kenya.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7(3):189–200. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.3p.189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Elke. 2010. “Einleitung.” In Gewalt in der Sprache. Rhetoriken verletzenden Sprechens, edited by Elke Koch and Sybille Krämer, 9–20. Paderborn et al.: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Fritz. 1987. “Tabus.” Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 60:19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurier.at. 2017. “Hasspostings: Grüne zwingen Facebook in die Knie.” Kurier.at, 8 May 2017. https://kurier.at/politik/inland/hasspostings-gruene-zwingen-facebook-in-die-knie/262.659.334. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Leader Maynard, Jonathan, and Susan Benesch. 2016. “Dangerous Speech and Dangerous Ideology: An Integrated Model for Monitoring and Prevention.” Genocide Studies and Prevention 9(3):70–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 2005. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maraini, Dacia. 2001. “Ma il dolore non ha una bandiera.” Corriere della Sera, 5 Oct 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, Mary J. 1989. “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story.” Michigan Law Review 87(8):2320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, Mary J., Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberley W. Crenshaw. 1993. Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell. E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1993. “The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas.” Journal of Communication 43(2):58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meddaugh, Priscilla M., and Jack Kay. 2009. “Hate Speech or ‘Reasonable Racism’? The Other in Stormfront.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24(4):251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meibauer Jörg. 2013. Hassrede/Hate speech: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einer aktuellen Diskussion. Gießen: Gießener elektronische Bibliothek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Ilan H. 2003. “Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.” Psychological Bulletin 129(5):674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OHCHR. 2012. Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Orsini, Francesca. 2006. “Cannons and Rubber Boats: Oriana Fallaci and the ‘Clash of Civilizations.’” Interventions 8(3):444–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russmann, Uta. 2015. “Die Qualität politischer Online-Diskussionen.” In Demokratisierung durch Social Media? Mediensymposium 2012, edited by Kurt Imhof, Roger Blum, Heinz Bonfadelli, Otfried Jarren, and Vinzenz Wyss, 177–195. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10140-4_11.

  • Saleem, Haji Mohammad, Kelly P. Dillon, Susan Benesch, and Derek Ruths. 2016. “A Web of Hate: Tackling Hateful Speech in Online Social Spaces.” Paper presented at First Workshop on Text Analytics for Cybersecurity and Online Safety (TA-COS 2016), Portorož, Slovenia, 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10159. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Schieb, Carla, and Mike Preuss. 2016. Governing hate speech by means of counterspeech on Facebook. Paper presented at 66. Jahrestagung “Communicating with Power” of the International Communication Association (ICA), Fukuoka, Japan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303497937_Governing_hate_speech_by_means_of_counterspeech_on_Facebook. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  • Searle, John R. 1980. “The Intentionality of Intention and Action.” Cognitive Science 4(1):47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 2008. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sponholz, Liriam. 2016. “Islamophobic Hate Speech: What is the Point of Counter-Speech? The Case of Oriana Fallaci and The Rage and the Pride.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 36(4):502–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sponholz, Liriam. 2018. Hate Speech in den Massenmedien: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Umsetzung. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, Janet E. 1995. “Experts and the Operational Bias of Television News: The Case of the Persian Gulf War.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72(4):799–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, Scott. 2007. “What is the Relationship between Hate Radio and Violence? Rethinking Rwanda’s ‘Radio Machete.’” Politics & Society 35(4):609–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, Jeffrey. 2004. “Der Rahmen der Determinierung.” In Schwierige Verhältnisse: Interdependenzen zwischen Journalismus und PR, edited by Klaus Dieter Altmeppen, Ulrike Röttger, and Günter Bentele, 161–179. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanagizawa-Drott, David. 2014. “Propaganda and Conflict: Evidence from the Rwandan Genocide.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129(4):1947–1994. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DeZIM-Institut, Deutsches Zentrum Für Integrations- Und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM) e. V., Berlin, Germany

    Liriam Sponholz

Authors
  1. Liriam Sponholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liriam Sponholz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Gisela Febel

  2. Universität Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Kerstin Knopf

  3. Universität Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Martin Nonhoff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sponholz, L. (2023). Counter Speech: Practices of Contradiction on Hate Speech and their Effects. In: Febel, G., Knopf, K., Nonhoff, M. (eds) Contradiction Studies – Exploring the Field. Contradiction Studies. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37784-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37784-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-37783-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-37784-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation