Dangerous speech is any form of expression (including speech, text, or images) that can increase the risk that its audience will condone or participate in violence against members of another group. Susan Benesch coined this term (and founded the Dangerous Speech Project) after observing that fear-inducing, divisive rhetoric rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence and that it is often uncannily similar, even in different countries, cultures, and historical periods. We call these rhetorical similarities ‘hallmarks’ of dangerous speech. One familiar example of them is dehumanization, in which people are often described as insects, vermin, bacteria, or cancer.
Another hallmark is to tell people that they face a mortal threat from a disfavored or minority group, which makes violence seem not just acceptable, but necessary. This hallmark has been dubbed ‘accusation in a mirror’ because it asserts that violence would come from the opposite side – from those who are actually the would-be victims of violence.
How can one know which speech is dangerous? One must make an educated, systematic guess. Dangerous speech cannot be identified solely by the hallmarks or by any aspect of its content, since its capacity to inspire violence depends so much on its context – on who spreads it, how, to whom, and in what social and historical context.
Hate speech can be offensive, painful, and even threatening, but often it does not inspire violence by those who are exposed to it. Conversely, dangerous speech isn’t always hateful. It often instills fear, which can be at least as powerful as hatred for spurring violence. So the two categories overlap only partly, as this diagram illustrates.
Another distinction is this: the most familiar way in which hate speech harms is directly, by hurting the feelings, self-respect, or dignity of people it purports to describe, when they are exposed to it. By contrast, dangerous speech does much of its damage indirectly, by persuading one group of people to fear, hate - and eventually to condone or even commit violence against - another group. Hate speech can also harm indirectly, by persuading one group of people to hate another group, and there the categories overlap as illustrated.
We have developed an analytical framework for evaluating dangerousness based on the message itself and four related elements: Speaker, Audience, Context, and Medium.
Dangerous speech often contains ‘hallmarks’ such as dehumanization or ‘accusation in a mirror.’ Another example of a hallmark is to portray the target group as violating the purity of the in-group, making violence a necessary method of preserving one’s identity. Some Dangerous Speech never makes direct reference to the target group. Instead, it describes members of the in-group either as traitors for being too sympathetic to the other group, or as good, virtuous in-group members, for example because they express their hatred of the other group.
Some speakers are more influential than others, and they are therefore more capable of compelling a group to violence. Influence may stem from their status as political, religious, or cultural leaders, or they may gain influence from their natural charisma. The speaker can be anonymous, and in some cases that can make the speaker more influential.
When an audience is already ‘primed’ for violence, they will be more easily swayed by dangerous speech. A primed audience might be one that is already fearful of other groups, one that has longstanding and unresolved trauma, or one that lacks ties to other social groups – especially the target group. When dangerous speech is delivered to an audience that is not susceptible, it is unlikely to lead to violence.
The context consists of the social, historical, and political environment in which speech reaches its audience. Aspects of the context that are conducive to dangerous speech include longstanding competition over resources, previous episodes of violence, difficult living conditions, an ongoing war, etc.
The medium, or means of dissemination, can make speech more dangerous if it possesses its own influence. For example, a medium that is the audience’s only or primary source of information is likely to have significant influence over that audience. Mediums with influence may be a popular newspaper, a particular language, or a type of communication technology – for example, radio, television, or the Internet.
Violence may be prevented by interfering with dangerous speech in any of several ways. The first is to convince people not to say or write it in the first place. Second, one can limit the spread of the dangerous speech itself. Third, one can teach them to recognize dangerous speech so they will find it less convincing. This is sometimes called “inoculation” since it is analogous to a vaccine. Finally, one can respond to dangerous speech after it is already circulating, in ways that make it less persuasive - less dangerous. We call that counterspeech.
These efforts must never infringe upon freedom of speech since that is a fundamental right – and also since denying that freedom often means that people have no peaceful means of expressing and resolving their grievances, making violence more attractive.
