Manual on hate speech online (ENG) by SEYF

HATE SPEECH on-line MANUAL

edited by:

Sandro Salvatore Accogli, Vincenzo Lotito [ENGLISH VERSION]

Manual ON HATE SPEECH ONLINE

Hate speech on line: capacity building workshop

The opinion expressed in this work are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy and opinions of the Council of Europe.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Manual on hate speech onlineâ&#x20AC;? by SEYF - South Europe Youth Forum is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.seyf.eu.

Index PREFACE, of C. Kyenge, 5 INTRODUCTION, of South Europe Youth Forum, 7 ZERO THE PROJECT, 7 I. The project, of V. Lotito, 7 II. The experience, of S. Accogli, 11 ONE MAPPING HATE SPEECH ONLINE, 17 I. The importance of words for not communicating hate, of F. Lefons, 18 II. Cyberbullying and Communication, of S. Cristante, 21 III. Wild words in wild times, of I. Diamanti, 24 IV. From freedom of speech to the abuse of it, of G. Verri, 27 V. Active sheet #1: Map of hate speech online delle parole d’odio, 37 TWO PREVENTION OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE, 40 I. Hate Speech: not what but how you say it, of D. De Matteis, 41 II. Prevention of Hate Speech, of M. R. Stincone, 49 III. Institutions and protection of gender discriminations, of A. Ferreri, 52 IV. Active sheet #2: “Speeches”, activity for activists, trainers and youth/social workers, 57 THREE COMBATING HATE SPEECH ONLINE, 63 I. The role of NGOs in the field of Human Rights, of A. Pisanò, 64 II. Hate Speech: the educational role of Education, of A. R. Merico, 70 III. Hate Speech in LGBT activism, of G. Saracino, 77 IV. Active sheet #3: E-stickers: viral communication against hate speech, 80 AFTERWORD di S. Gozi, 84 Acknowledgements, 86 CONTACTS, 87

Introduction

PREFACE

On. CĂŠcile Kyenge Minister for Integration of the Italian Government

The Internet is a liquid space of the global village ruled by speed, incisiveness, interconnection and relationships. It is a space where identity is redefined in comparison with the other, where the digital person communicates as some sort of amplified continuation of the real person. This kind of extension of real life also corresponds with an extension of the relational space. It is important to pay attention to the way in which these stereotypes are replicated to the web and to focus attention on the discriminatory behaviour that can lead to abuses and violations of human rights, whose size is exponentially increased by the spread of the interconnection: for these reasons it is essential to analyze social problems and to impose different practices in order to convey new content that redirect and empowering the community. An important way for creating better communities on line is to take advantage in a positive way of the pervasiveness of the web, for facilitating the entrance into the network of best practices that educate the community to self-regulate and to intervene where there is deprivation of rights, insults and threats: this helps to increase and stimulates a constructive interaction among people through the peer-education: the methodology that promotes education among peers automatically encourages the prevention of risk behaviours. The methodology proposed in this work, in fact, follows the above mentioned direction since, on the one hand involves the network of local partners, the Uni-

Introduction

versity, institutions and stakeholders, with a territorial impact; on the other hand it has achieved, created awareness and activated in practice a wider audience of young people, experts, activists, being able to leave the confines of a specific circuit and triggering a positive viral communication. The power and pervasiveness of the message of the words of hatred have been investigated , in this manual, then mapped and finally analyzed, in order to find and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;socializeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; solutions, providing young people with the tools of participation and active citizenship to become involved in the change and the immediate regulation of the network. In fact, the most effective and fast answer, is the one that governs the phenomenon of hatred through the sharing of knowledge based on educational and experiential methodologies and an integrated dialogue that involves different subjects and points of view for the beginning of concrete actions of prevention. As institutions and administrators, this does not exempt us from resorting to legal solutions such as the implementation of the Convention on Cyber-crime of Budapest and the following additional protocol to the Convention, concerning the racist and xenophobic offenses committed via the Internet, in order to update the criminal law for prosecuting hate speech crimes and their diffusion. However, to govern this online phenomenon, it is primarily necessary and essential to make users responsible and actively involved.

THE AUTHOR

CĂŠcile Kyenge Kashetu was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo, she is Italian citizen. married, with two daughters. Prior to assuming the role of Minister for Integration she was a qualified ophthalmologist and she has always activley involved in the promotion of social integration. On April 28, 2013 she was appointed Minister for Integration by the President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano. CONTACTS: www.cecilekyenge.it

Introduction

INTRODUCTION Sandro Accogli PRESIDENT SEYF

The current manual was inspired by an important priority of the Council of Europe that set ”Young People Combating Hate Speech Online” as priority for the two-years period 2012-14, in line with the international Campaign against Hate Speech launched by the Council (No Hate Speech Movement). Nevertheless, the present manual has got a precious and peculiar feature: it represents a scientific and, in the meanwhile, experiential platform for laying the groundwork of a deeper analysis, a more accurate prevention and more effective way of fighting hate speech online, especially among young people. Hatred expressed through words, the so-called hate speech is identified as: “The term “hate speech” shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin. (Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers” Recommendation 97(20) The story of Communication used as a weapon for hurting, discriminating, ‘hating’ or keeping or under ‘a glass ceiling’ a community, a population or someone unpleasant and controversial, appears as an old story. However, an alert and patient reader, while reading this manual, will find how nowadays words can be used as hate speech in new, cunningly, powerful ways.

Introduction

Within the so-called ‘society 2.0’ hatred can be rapidly disseminated as a tsunami with the speed of a click or a ‘tweet’. A words is now able to reverberate itself, to kill and destroy, most of the time through common communication: television, internet or, worse, familiar communication. This manual is strengthened by the experience of SEYF and its network, real and online, that based its work on a better, aware and honest use of communication. The manual does not have the presumption of completeness: rather, it aims at creating an updated anchorage, a snap-shot of current reality, in order to re-find and re-value a moment of silence and calm reflection after which we can restart to speak again with more aware, healthy, and constructive words. All in all, the manual is not going to be politically correct with its words, but it is going to be honest. Always. With ourselves and with the civil society that we represent with humility, diligence, commitment and pride.

Enjoy the reading. Enjoy the words.

Chapter Zero

The Project

The project

I. THE PROJECT “Young people are fitter to invent than to judge;

Vincenzo Lotito

SEYF South Europe Youth Forum

fitter for execution than for counsel; and more fit for new projects than for settled business” Francis Bacon

‘Social Rightwork’ has been realized in the frame of the project “Hate speech online: capacity-building workshop”, supported by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe. It has been a capacity building workshop for multipliers and activists, based on the issue of on-line hate speech and focused on the priority “young people defending human rights online, namely Internet-based projects against hate speech”. The idea of the project came from the daily experience of SEYF – South Europe Youth Forum, a young social network from the Apulia region (Italy) that works for creating connections among youth organizations and young people (www.seyf. eu). Being an internet seated platform, we had to face the issue of online communication among youngsters, which made us aware of this current problem. As a matter of fact, considering the ‘free zone’ given by the Internet, the problem is going to increase if it will not be properly dealt with by all the stakeholders involved. The workshop, developed by SEYF, has been held in Lecce from 17th to 19th December 2012 with the main objective to create a moment for mapping, preventing and combating all forms of hate speech online among young people, for providing young people, NGOs, activists and stakeholders with all the necessary tools and skills on the new and various universe of online discrimination. The workshop specifically aimed at: - MAPPING of different types of hate speech online by analyzing how they impact the youth world and considering the extensive use of the Internet from young people and the easier access: we created a map of hate speech online.

The project

- PREVENTION of discriminating behaviors with hate speech online through the sharing of tools for making all the stakeholders aware about all the risks deriving with hate speech on-line. We created non formal activities useful for activist, youth trainers and youth workers. - COMBATING hate speech on-line, contributing to a democratic governance of the Internet by educating young people to a correct and auto-controlling use of speech on-line, for establishing new communication models based on mutual respect of human rights. Besides, we created e-stickers for combating the problem of hates speech online, useful for activists, bloggers and young people online. The workshop, according to the approach of SEYF, integrated theoretical methodologies together with methods of experiential and non-formal education: in this way, we recreated a structured dialogue among the different profiles of participants. There were two daily sessions within 3 days of workshop: in the morning we ‘shared the experiences’ (theoretical session) and the afternoon we ‘put into practice the experience’ (practice session). During the morning: experts, activists and representatives of NGOs active in the field of human rights have shared their knowledge and experiences on the theme of Hate Speech online. During the afternoon: young participants have practically learnt and experienced the issue of Hate Speech with specific activities carried out by trainers and facilitators of SEYF and they created useful material for the Campaign against Hate Speech online: the map of hate speech online, activities for activists, youth trainers and youth workers and e-stickers. 1

THE AUTHOR

Project cycle of “Hate speech on-line: capacitybuilding workshop” implemented by SEYF

Vincenzo Lotito is expert in Outdoor Education and project managing. He is one of the founding members of SEYF since 2010. His interests range from art, intercultural issues and artistic direction of cultural events. CONTACTS: vincenzo.lotito@seyf.eu - www.seyf.eu

The project

Poster of the project

The project

II. THE EXPERIENCE

Sandro Accogli

“Thus they went on living in a reality that was slip-

SEYF South Europe Youth Forum

ping away, momentarily captured by words, but which would escape irremediably when they forgot the values of the written letters.”

G. G. Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude

“Hate Speech Online: capacity building workshop” is a project that has revolutionized the way we think, observe and whisper the words. Since the preparatory and planning stage we started feeling the perception of having a high and new task in step with the times, a new challenge that needs new words, new tools and new knowledge. The project, also called “Social Rightwork” as an alternative title for providing a greater understanding among young people of the importance of online communication, has opened new roads and interesting insights that represent an interesting follow up for the future, both for SEYF (as managing organization) and for all the NGOs and the institutions involved, thus creating a viral and positive platform of awareness of hate speech online and of dissemination of results. The experience has been intense and generated a high number of positive actions and small revolutions in the lives of the young participants of the workshops and in the quality of the work done by activists, youth workers, experts and institutional representatives who actively took part in the workshop. The project, due to the widespread involvement of local partners (universities, media partners, institutional bodies, NGOs) had a significant local impact, succeeding in reaching a wide number of stakeholders (youth, experts, activists, institutions). As stated in the program of activities, the project took place over three days,

The project

trying to combine the theoretical with the practical side. During the morning sessions, experience on hate speech online was shared thanks to contributions from experts who have enriched the state of the art on hate speech online. In the afternoon sessions, the practice session was focused on the practical implementation of non-formal workshops and have educated young guys to the value of human rights in general, words and communication in particular. The most relevant contributions of the morning sessions have been included in this manual, in the same order (mapping, prevention, combating hate speech online). Similarly, the results of the afternoon sessions (map, activities and estickers) were transfused in this manual, in order to give the sense of the results obtained during the workshop.

Mapping Hate Speech online: moment of the morning session

Mapping Hate Speech online: moment of analysis

The project

Preventing Hate-Speech online: moment of the morning session

Preventing HateSpeech online: moment of the morning session

Combating Hate-Speech online: moment of the morning session

The project

Mapping HateSpeech online: afternoon activity on words

Preventing Hate Speech: creation of a non formal activity for trainers, youth workers and activists

THE AUTHOR

Sandro Accogli is expert in Human Rights and Sustainable Development. He is one of the founding members of SEYF since 2010. His interests range from communication, culture and participation and democratic process. CONTACTS: sandro.accogli@seyf.eu - www.seyf.eu

Chapter One

Mapping Hate Speech online

Mapping hate speech online

I. The importance of words for not communicating hate

Francesco Lefons JOURNALIST 20centesimi.it

“But how are you talking about?” ... Words are important”, was yelling out an exasperated (maybe neurasthenic) Nanni Moretti, alias Michele Apicella, to an expert consumer of anglicisms and linguistic cliché. Of course, the latter, she was a journalist. The scene is the famous one from the movie ‘Palombella Rossa’, 1989, that brings with itself the seeds of a certain long-lasting, ominously longevity (‘I just go around, do things, see people. Sic!’). As well as in 1989, even now, A.D. 2012, words are important (ending soon): an era in which you have unlimited access to compositions and writings, languages, communication; an era in which an expert usage of the dictionary is a necessary but not sufficient condition for moving deftly in the complicated and demanding post-post democratic current social fabric: from Facebook to an essay on moral philosophy it’s just a short step. Many readings, few certainties. The question on hate speech seems a burning issue, hanging in the balance between the incriminate use of a clear and manifest verbal violence –written and spoken – and the violence cunningly hidden behind the politically correct. The world of words seems difficult and intricate. We need to follow an obsequious respect for not being betrayed by the words. It doesn’t take a long time for discovering ourselves as racist, just because we use an inappropriate word.

Mapping hate speech online

We can recognize ourselves homophobic, sexists, violent, trivial, superficial. Hateful: meaning that we hate though words. For sure, there are people without a deep knowledge of words, but they know how to get by in this world. In a good way. But they’re world-beater. Natural talents. Rare items. For most of the people (for the remaining ones) words are essential for getting a sense of the world, experiencing it, interpreting it, telling it. But then, dynamic psychologists (but also linguists, sociologists, semiologists and- why “Una partita di tutti contro tanti not?- philosophers) tend to explain che si gioca nel solco tracciato tra that words influence our way of vecchi e nuovi media, dove si anthinking, feeling and perceiving realnidano pericoli antichi e orizzonti ity. That’s exactly the story, the tale nuovi” that becomes crucial in the era of unlimited access to communication, for the reason that the story is not in the hands of few specialists anymore, but it has been extended to a w i d e r turnout of people-users. It’s now a match where everybody play against many, on the path lined by old and new media, in which you’ll find old dangers and new horizons; it’s now a must to shake old habits off together with old languages, the ones of the old-school-TVs, so loadened with the ‘giornalese’ style (journalism-like) and discrimination strategies that even the best mass media expert could get sick. It’s the same TV, do not forget, the same one that in the 90’s, together with the first disembarkations of Albanian people, during the 1990s TV has introduced a journalistic current, still in fashion today, that goes under the name of “ethnicity of crime”. The paradigm is both rough and simple: immigration = disorder = criminality. Let’s also mention that type of newspapers, that monsters’ factory always ready for the front page: it has been always found, then, that the monster was just a ugly duckling, never worthy of apologies (there is a huge literature at your disposal). The alternative may be found in a challenge: the one launched by the new media, that relies on the responsibility of everyone, because everyone is poten-

Mapping hate speech online

tially a protagonist. The step from the level of end-consumer to the level of aware-consumer [consumer of communication, editor’s note] is not that easy. The challenge take place in this no-man’s-land where public and private spheres are superimposed. When we will understand that a Facebook profile (and the same applies to Twitter and to the other social media) is not ‘virtual stuff’ anymore but a real slice of life. What happens online happens in real life. For this reason hatred online has the same effects of hatred vis à vis. This happens because media sociality keeps the same risks and potentialities as the real sociality. At this point, words represent the (re)starting point, for their essential, unavoidable importance. For not communication hatred, for giving life to new tales worthy to be lived. The starting point are words: not to communicate hate but something it is worth living for.

THE AUTHOR

Francesco Lefons is journalist and new media expert, he works for the Cooperative Laboratorio Giornalisti Indipendenti, Communication Agency and publishing house of the online newspaper 20centesimi.it. CONTACTS: francescolefons@gmail.com www.20centesimi.it

Mapping hate speech online

II. Cyberbullying and Communication

Stefano Cristante

Prof. Sociology of communication UniversitĂ del Salento

I presume there is no need to question how important communication is nowadays. The Internet has changed our world profoundly. The electronic mail, the Web and the social networks have not only added important tools and created the status of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Web Citizenâ&#x20AC;?, but they have also modified the object of communication with the use of traditional means. From the book to the radio, from the TV to the cinema, everything is presented under a brand new light since the web is daily used to access every type of information. There are a number of reasons for questioning on how this change has taken and it still takes form in our lives. I am talking about hate-speech. It is not a brand new phenomenon: the last century (just to mention the closest century) has in fact been dominated by demonstrations of hate-speech. First the racist, anti-Semite, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic propaganda of the totalitarian regimes in Europe, which has been the set of the Second World War during which millions of people died. Then the Cold War which did hide a cruel geopolitical conflict for over ten years, keeping the world under the threaten of a nuclear war. The friend-enemy logic applied in politics generates hate-speech. Here the enemy embodies the scapegoat of every kind of problem.

Mapping hate speech online

In the Web Age the danger of a daily germination of insults and demonizations is higher than the past. Once you needed to create a newspaper, make a leaflet, hang a manifesto, or summon a meeting: in other words you needed to put your face in some way but now everything can be anonymous, even because you can dribble your identity with a fake. Or you can agree with a hate-speech with a “Like”, or hiding behind the approval to those sites which practise online hate day by day. Hate speech hurts. This is the main point. Words like ‘faggot’, ‘bastard’, ‘Jew’, ‘nigger’, ‘whore’ cause pain. A pain which cannot be removed with the so called “politically correct”, even “The friend-enemy logic applied in politics generates hate-speech. Here because who uses hate-speech the enemy embodies the scapegoat does not have any term to transof every kind of problem” late “correctly” those dirty images which come out his/her mind. One underrated problem has been the overlap between public and private sphere. The Internet shows us a world which apparently seems to be built around individual people though everything happens into a collective frame where everyone can penetrate. There are laws that punish hate-speakers among traditional forms of communication: for example the author of an article on a newspaper. But on the web it does not work the same. People who agree with hate-speeches must be informed of the gravity of their choice. They can cause communicative aberrations because they may think they are just talking to a handful of speakers but actually their words can be used in wider contexts. Fear is a terrible derivative of hate-speech. Fear of being considered as object of social horror. It is necessary to punish with public denounce those who agitate a kind of neo-propaganda against weak people. It is necessary to inform that certain sites are only to mislead and claim hate models that, through the web, want to use a kind of virtual (digital) truncheon. I do not think that repression and stigmatization are the only ways to circumscribe the phenomenon, but I think that everything possible should be done in

Mapping hate speech online

order to break the silence on modern ways of discrimination, to let everyone use their freedom of speech without persecutions and destruction. The web should be an intelligent place where a public speech should express criticism on how hate-speech has fed hate-actions in the past centuries.

THE AUTHOR

Stefano Cristante, Associate Professor and Chairman of the degree course program in Communication Sciences, University of Salento, where he teaches Sociology of Communication and founded the Observatory of Political Communication. He wrote, among other things: Potere e comunicazione (“Power and Communications”) (1999-2004), Azzardo e conflitto (“Gambling and conflict”) (2001), Media Philosophy (2005), Comunicazione (è) politica (“Communication (is) politics”) (2009), Prima dei mass media (“Before the mass media”) (2011). CONTACT: stefano.cristante@unisalento.it

Mapping hate speech online

III. wILD wORDS IN WILD TIMES

Ilvo Diamanti

Sociologist, columnist “la repubblica”, president “Demos & Pi” institute

Politicians of the First Republic. They were obscure. Language was made on purpose to be misunderstood. By anyone but them. In their milieu. Coded messages. Indirect. Parallel. Citizens, on their side, didn’t care so much. Speeches of politicians and about politics: were not their business. Nevertheless society was not extraneous to political context. “Context”, exactly. A ‘text’ which is shared. Because politics is representative and representation. “Representatives” reflect the society and the society reflects itself in the representatives. At least in part. And language was their mirror. So, people used to talk in a ‘polite’ way. Before the public. Swear words were not allowed. When they slipped out, the perpetrator was gazed with a contrived smile, with blame. On newspapers and medias then, disaster. The ‘cazzo!’ (‘fuck!’), strategically sounded off by Zavattini, in 1976, made a noise. Actually, racket. When instead, Benigni, guest of Raffaella Carrà on TV, performed with all the synonyms of ‘passerottina’ (‘pussy’), from ‘chitarrina’ to ‘vulva’, (‘from noozy to coozy’), he caused belly laughs but much less din. It was 1991. Berlin’s wall was fallen. And with it all the Italian political system. Burying the First Republic together with a civilization which was formalist and a bit deceiver. Where the gap between society and politics was to be found in the impossibility to understand what happened ‘in the highest ranks’. Politicians were not appreciated nor estimated. Even before ‘Tangentopoli’. They were considered as dishonest. Unreliable. Not interested in problems of the ‘common people’. Nevertheless people did not care that much. Everyone voted. Always. At the same way.

Mapping hate speech online

Sure, in the Seventy’s, social movements took to the street with violent slogans. But it was a way of fighting. Language was a ‘political’ instrument, not an ‘anti-political’ one. Because, anyway, ‘politics’ and ‘political class’ counted. And their power was recognized. Today, or better since 20 years at least: the scene is changed. Politics keep on being unpopular, as before, even more than before. But no one has scruples “chi sta in alto, i rappresentanti, to say it. Not even politicians. Who insegue chi sta in basso, i rappreare disgusted by each other and have sentati. E scende più in basso pos- no problems to say it reciprocally. sibile. Tutti leader e tutti follower.” There’s no one, nonetheless, which is disposed to admit it. To admit to be a politician. Not even the executive of the par t y, members of Parliament, Senators, and all the im-polites. The glass which separated politics from the society and the society from politics: broken. At least from the point of view of communication and language. The high and the low. The higher class, the representatives, chase the lower class, the represented. Falling down and down. Everyone is a leader and everyone is a follower. ‘High class’ pretends to act like ‘common people’. In order to imitate the ‘vulgus’ they attempt to be ‘vulgar’. And they succeed. Without effort. Because very often they’re worse than them. In behaviors and words. They transformed the Parliament and the political set in a place with no limits and no rules. In speeches, in language. Between representative and represented, it’s a never-ending play of mirrors. In this way the exhibition of ‘chi ce l’ha duro’ (‘the one who has it hard’) alternate with the motto ‘Forza Gnocca’ (‘long live to pussy!’). In a time when International relations between ‘Cavalieri arrapati’ (‘horny Cavaliers’) and ‘Culone inchiavabili’ (‘not screwable big ass’) weave together. Recently, moreover, in squares, building and mass media ‘vaffanculo’ (‘fuck off!’) resound endlessly. Who refuses to talk with ‘morti-che-parlano-e-camminano’ (‘dead man talking and walking’). With the ‘padri puttanieri della Patria’ (‘fa-

Mapping hate speech online

thers son-of-a-bitch of the Country’). Who are already dead. And however ‘have to die’. As soon as possible. If we really want to change the country. It’s the mood of the time. The language of the time. ( Very well resumed in ‘Dizionario della Seconda Repubblica’, written by Lorenzo Pregliasco, and to be published soon by Editori Riuniti). It contaminates everybody and everything. Even the kindest artist. Even him, the Artist [Franco Battiato, editor’s note] I trusted in the most troubled moments. When I lived ‘strange days’. He reassured me by whispering ‘I will take care of you’ [reference to Battiato’ songs, editor’s note]. Even him, once became a ‘politician’, describes the Parliament as a place crowded by ‘bitches, disposed to everything’. And so, why keep on resisting? Why addressing people in a still polite way? Why continuing to ask for respect: between parents and sons, teachers and students, authorities and citizens, immigrants and residents, neighbors and faraway, friends, acquaintances and strangers. Why? And why stopping at words and don’t proceed with facts? The passage is short. Words are facts. Why then me, right me, I have to be the only ‘coglione’ (‘asshole’) still in circulation? The only one who treats everybody, but really everybody, with respect? Even the ones I do not respect? So I give up. To the mood and the language of the time. And, to end, I relaunch an elegant adage, collected in the ‘Bar da Braun’: ‘andate-a-fare-in-culo, voi e la vostra politica del cazzo’ (‘fuck you and your fucking politics’). Note: I wrote this speech about the degenerated relationship between language, politics and society by trying to stay coherent. Till the end. Nonetheless this language hurts me. Writing in this way hurts me and makes me annoyed. I will never do it again. And if word are necessary to “represent” the reality, if language is representation, today I do not feel myself represented. In this ‘Republic with words’, or better with swear words, I declare myself a political prisoner. In those bad times, wilder and wilder, I exercise my right to refuse to answer.

THE AUTHOR

Ilvo Diamanti is presently professor of Political Science at the University “Carlo Bo” of Urbino (Faculty of Sociology). He is director of Laboratory of Political and Social Studies (La Polis) of the Faculty of Sociology. He is pro-dean of the University “Carlo Bo” of Urbino for international and territory relationship. Currently he is president of the Demos & Pi Institute (Vicenza), and columnist of the national Italian newspaper “La Repubblica”. CONTACTS: diamanti@demos.it

Mapping hate speech online

IV. From freedom of speech to the abuse of it

Greta Verri

Master of Science in Clinical psychology And health protection

[When the freedom of speech becomes not criminally relevant]

How many times did we listen to speeches that infringe upon human dignity? Did we ever take more time to think about the negative effects suffered by the victims? Hate Speech is a generic definition that covers the use of discriminating words, phrases or speeches for expressing hatred for a race, ethnic group, religion, sexual orientation or just a preference of orientation. If we make a distinction between hate speech and hate crime it comes out an important and, in my opinion, impartial difference. Hate Crime is related to action acted as physical attack, blows, acts of vandalism, arson, homicide, lynching, harassment and persecution and is punishable by criminal and civil laws. On the contrary, the verbal and iconographic expression of hate through words and neologism as “fag” and “nigger” are not considered as a crime. Therefore, this demonstrates that the law does not completely fulfills its function to control the actions of people in order to guarantee same rights, duties and dignity to all the citizens. The articles 1 and 3 of the “Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union” state that “Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and pro-

Mapping hate speech online

tected” and that “Everyone has the right to respected for his or her physical and mental integrity”. Unfortunately, in our daily life, many people become gratuitously victims of hate speech only for their belonging to a minority. Herein, we are going to hark back to a case study of the LGBT minority (identified as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community). The fear and the intimidation caused by hate speech prevents LGBT people to fully participate in the society. The amount of hate speech and hate crimes against these people in the EU can not be measured because, most of the Member States, do not collect data on the issue. However, some studies suggest that, in some Member States, up to 50% of LGBT people have been victims of hate speech or hate crimes (FRA, 2009). Herek, a researcher in psychology, has studied the hate speech directed at LGBT people and He found that 92% of gays and lesbians has been involved in anti-gay incidents and that the majority of gays and lesbians have been verbally harassed (Journal of Homosexuality , 2005). Furthermore, the victimization resulted from crimes of hatred towards LGBT people is linked more to a more severe symptomatology than to the one resulting from crimes not related to prejudice. These symptoms consists of depression, anger, anxiety, post-traumatic stress and other more specific emotional and cognitive effects. The research also showed that both, the hate crimes and the hate speech, creates a climate of fear in the LGBT population and, often, those who commit a hate crime, firstly act out first on a symbolic level, i.e. using discriminatory words and leaving in the victims feelings of extreme vulnerability (ibid.). Currently, the modern meaning of the term ‘heterosexism’ refers to a form of concealed prejudice thanks to which people can hide their hostility; according to this perspective, people believe that the discrimination against gays and lesbians no represents longer a problem, given the equal opportunities reached, and therefore these people do not have the legitimacy to get angry at the way they are treated; this combines with the legislative point of view according to which physical aggression is considered a crime unlike an abuse of freedom of speech. Noting, however, that hate speech causes psychological harm to the victim,

Mapping hate speech online

it is important to emphasize that a phrase, written on a wall or on a web page, can cause trauma although less virulent than other crimes or acts of physical violence, because the victims experience a depletion of resources normally available for facing the various stresses of life (ibid.). In Psychology, this is called the Minority Stress. This terminology was coined by Ilan Mayer, psychiatrist epidemiologist, who devised the Theory of Minority Stress. Her studies on gender identity showed that a stigmatized subject is likely to be subject to such conflicts, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Minority Stress (...) a stigmatized subject is likely to be subject to such because the dominant culture, the conflicts, because the dominant social structures and the general culture, the social structures and rules do not reflect the same aspects the general rules do not reflect the of the minority group. The Minority same aspects of the minority groupâ&#x20AC;? Stress Model (MSM; Meyer 2003.2006), could be considered an elaboration of the social theory of stress: this construct allows us to distinguish the excessive stress that affects individuals belonging to groups subject to stigma (ibid.). The Author recognizes three fundamental characteristics related to this construct, such as uniqueness, since the Minority Stress adds more stress to the stress commonly experienced by the entire population in normal life and, therefore, stigmatized people need a greater force to adapt to life than other people; the second characteristic is the chronicity, as it is connected to relatively stable structures of society and culture; the third characteristic is related to the fact that the Minority Stress is based on society as the result of social processes, institutions and structures beyond the individual, rather than individual events or stressors general or genetic characteristics, biological or characteristics not merely social of the subjects involved by the stress. The sources of stress can be found both on a extra-personal level (e.g. personal experiences of prejudice, violence, hate speech or presence of discriminatory laws), and intra-personal level due to thoughts, expectations of being worse treated or being laughed at, to the activation state that such expectations require and to the internalization of social disparaging laws.

Mapping hate speech online

The psychological literature (Bonino et al, 2007; Besser, 2007) agrees that the expression of discomfort generated by the Minority Stress often leads LGBT people to have externalizing or internalizing behaviors. The first behaviors (externalizing), prevalent in the male gender, are characterized by destructive and harmful conducts to others; in particular impulsive, hyperactive and delinquent acts (Burns et al 1997), antisocial and risky behavior (Bonino et al., 2007) and also substance abuse and aggressiveness (Hintikka, 2002 Besser, 2007). The second â&#x20AC;&#x153;the high rates of suicide and behaviors (internalizing), prevalent mental disorders in LGBT people, in the female gender, tends more to are explained by the Sexual Minordirect emotions toward the inside; ity Stress as a function of the social such conducts, in fact, are characterstigma, prejudice and discriminaized by worry, fear, sadness, guilt and tion associatedâ&#x20AC;&#x153; anxiety (Zahn et al., 2000, Bonino et al, 2007), depression, conversion and somatization disorders and Trends in suicidal ideation (Pace et al., 2010 Besser, 2007). By comparing these data with the data of groups of heterosexuals, it is clear that the LGBT population reported higher rates of suicidal behaviors, (Cato et al 2003, Silence et al., 2007) and psychiatric disorders (Mayer, 2003), including depression. Over the past decade, a consensus among researchers has developed that the high rates of suicide and mental disorders in LGBT people are explained by the Sexual Minority Stress as a function of the social stigma, prejudice and discrimination associated (Journal of Homosexuality, 2011) and not by just being LGBT. An important risk factor for the development of Minority Stress is constituted by the internalized sexual stigma (Meyer, 2003). Herek (2007) refers to this construct for demonstrating how the individual acceptance of the sexual stigma is part of their system of values and self-concept; how the acted stigma and the perceived stigma both arise in sexual minorities and in heterosexuals. A study by Ortiz-Hernandez (2005) highlights as internalized stigma has been associated with greater levels of risk regarding suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, mental disorders and alcoholism. A similar correlation with suicidal ideation, was also highlighted in a study by Diaz et al., (2001). A recent study by Lingiardi, Baiocco

Mapping hate speech online

and Nardelli (2012) is in support of such evidence which consequently have a negative effect on the psychological well-being of LGBT people. A similar correlation with suicidal ideation, was also highlighted in a study by Diaz et al., (2001). A recent study by Lingiardi, Baiocco and Nardelli (2012) is in support of such evidence which consequently have a negative effect on the psychological well-being of LGBT people. The research has found that LGBT people are subject to institutionalized discrimination, family and social exclusion, hatred and antihomosexual violence and, often, living in a homophobic environment, they tend to internalize feelings of shame and hatred towards their own homo-affective desires. In contrast, a protective factor is made up of cross-sex friendships and crossorientation (Baiocco 2012), in fact the best friend for LGBT teens is of crucial importance since they can not share their â&#x20AC;&#x153;sexual minority statusâ&#x20AC;? with their parents. An additional risk factor for the Minority Stress is constituted by homophobic bullying. Although Herek (1988) outlines homophobia as related to the individual and institutional prejudice against lesbians and gay men, expressing repugnance, hostility or condemnation of homosexuality, it is important to emphasize that a way of expression of homophobia consists in homophobic bullying. Homophobic bullying involves all bullying and abuse actions that are, based on homophobia, addressed to people perceived as homosexual or atypical compared to gender roles. This phenomenon involves the males to a greater extent for two reasons: males are more homophobic as the male gender role is defined in a more precise way and its deviations are more penalized in our society; being gay is mistakenly perceived as not being men, whereby homosexuality becomes a threat to the male sexual identity. Secondly, bullying as a social phenomenon is prevalent among males. It follows that the latter have greater recourse to acts of homophobic bullying than females (Poteat, Espelage, 2005). Prati et al., (2009) found that homosexual or bisexual teenager tend to report that they have suffered more episodes of harassment and violence than heterosexual peers; in support of this evidence there is a research of Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Augelli (2002), who found that among students gay, lesbian or bisexual, 81% of them had suffered frequent verbal assaults, 38% threats of violence, 16% sexual harassment, 15% physical assaults, 6% assaults with a weapon.

Mapping hate speech online

These empirical evidences are comparable to a fire that is fraying and tearing, and therefore needs to be turned off as soon as possible in order to put an end to the countless damages which, day after day, tend to spread like a halo. Fortunately, in recent years, something is changing thanks to a series of initiatives aimed at the prevention of atypical behaviors that protect the LGBT population and at the promotion of well-being. For example, Louis-Georges has created the first International Day Against Homophobia, which took place May 17, 2005, that is 15 years after the removal of homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) established by the World Health Organization. In 2007, following some statements by Polish authorities against the LGBT community, the European Union officially established the Day Against Homophobia on its territory. In Italy, particularly in the Province of Rome in the Academic Year 2011/2012 the NISO Project was launched, with the co-financing of the Justice Division of the European Commission: the project was aimed at promoting human rights and fighting against homophobia in schools. The research was conducted in schools of Belgium, Estonia, Italy and the Netherlands. One of the main objectives was to involve more than 2,000 European students in a game called “Voice OUT”, based on human rights and diversity, in order to fight homophobia in schools and on mass media. The school-based intervention is a strong tool used to solve this problem because the school is one of the places in which the adolescent spends most of his/her time every day, a place where the intra-personal level is intertwined with the inter-personal, a place where learning is a rule. Unfortunately, like every coin, also this institution has its other side, because it is a place where you easily find discriminations. For example, a recent search of ‘Demoskopea’ and ‘Gay.it’ (2012) interviewed about 2,000 adolescents and adults with non-heterosexual orientation with respect to their memories of their life during the school period. The results showed that less than 50% of boys report that they have never had bad experiences at school; 9% reported incidents of discrimination with alarming and high frequency; 25% sometimes; 15% almost never. With regard to the type of discrimination suffered, 25% of students reported being bullied, 77% verbal

Mapping hate speech online

abuse and only 4% of offenses on social networks. This research has investigated quantitatively the protective factors of school contexts, noting that 90% of students felt discriminated by schoolmates, 15% by teachers, 6% by school staff and 5% by the headmasters. In relation to teachers, only 38% of them were aware of the discrimination faced by their students but only 15% of them intervened. With regard to school performance, 17% asserts that discrimination had a big influence on it, while 30% enough. Professors Valerio and Amodeo at the University of Naples “Federico II” have been training for years prevention in schools on the subject of homophobic bullying, also activating one-stop fight against homophobia. In the university field, Professor Valerio and Professor Amodeo, at the “Federico II” University of Naples for years have been training and preventing homophobic bullying in schools by activating a public desk against homophobia. The Professor Baiocco at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology of the “Università La Sapienza” in Rome has promoted since 2010 a series of conferences entitled “I am, I flow” with regards to LGBT issues. In collaboration with the University of ‘Tor Vergata’ in Rome, has also organized study-days on “Media and Homosexuality.” The University “La Sapienza” is currently engaged in a research involving 12 European countries and envisaging the administration of a set of tests and interviews that involve over 24,000 students. The presentation in the various University provides at least 4 hours of discussion on topics such as sexual orientation and gender identity, the rights denied, the training needs of the students on these issues. With regards to the promotion of well-being, psychological research and education represent two necessary and sufficient conditions without which the necessary progress would not be possible. The Professor Baiocco held in Rome the conference “I do not discriminate. Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Italian school” (2013) for Amnesty International, also dealing with the promotion of well-being. He said: “In recent years, many studies have examined the 5 basic steps that

Mapping hate speech online

schools can do to make the school itself a safe place for everyone, especially for LGBT students: school policies that clearly prohibit all forms of violence based on LGBT status; active intervention on teachers to stop the violence and anti-gay abuse; the creation of gay-straight clubs and associations (or groups of students that promote inclusion and respect of diversity); the creation of structures for information and psychological and practical support to LGBT students (eg. doors desk/counters) and finally inclusion of LGBT issues in the school curriculum. However, despite the young people belonging to sexual minorities may have greater need for information services and psychological counseling -continues Baioccothey are turning to these services with a lower frequency because they are afraid for their safety and that the services have not also been prepared for them. Currently, at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology of L’Università la Sapienza in Rome, thanks to the professor Baiocco, the service “6 come sei” (‘you are as you are’) is active for orienteering, consueling, and psychological treatment addressed to college students and not only, dealing with issues on sexual orientation and gender identity. (http://dip38.psi.uniroma1.it/dppss/6come6). Despite the more numerous step forward, many things still need to be done in order to extinguish that fire, and it is especially important that the good experiences are put into network and that interventions are empirically verified. Baiocco also stresses on the need to prepare better school policies that prohibit all forms of violence (both hate crimes and hate speech) based on LGBT status also through the training of teachers. This will be made possible not only due to the work of social and psychological research but also through a greater attention paid by the European Institutions in the field of human rights of LGBT.

Mapping hate speech online

Bibliography - Baiocco, R. Lingiardi, V., & Nardelli, (2012) Measure of Internalized Sexual Stigma for - Lesbians and Gays: A new Scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1191-1210. - Burns, GL. et al. (1997). Internal validity of the distruptive behavior disorder symptoms: Implications from parent ratings for a dimensional approach to symptom validity, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 307- 319. - Bonino, S., Cattelino, E., e Ciarano, S. (2007) . Adolescenti e rischio. Comportamenti, funzioni e fattori di protezione. Firenze. - Cato, J., Canetto, E. C., Silvia, S. C. (2003). Attitudes and beliefs about suicidal behavior when coming out is the precipitant of the suicidal behavior. Sex Roles, 49, 497-505. - Cowan, G., Heiple B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin C., (2005): Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Against Gays and Lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 49:2, 67-82. - D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). The cutting edges of lesbian and gay psychology. In A. Coyle, C. Kitzinger (Eds.). Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives 13-16. London: British Psychological Society/Blackwell. - Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Jenne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of Latino gay men. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927–932. - FRA, (2009) Hate Speech and Hate Crimes against LGBT Persons. FRA, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. - Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905–925. - Meyer, I. 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. - Leets, L., (2002) Experiencing Hate Speech: Perceptions and Responses to AntiSemitism and Antigay Speech, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 341-361. - Lingiardi V., Baiocco, R. & Nardelli, (2012) Measure of Internalized Sexual Stigma for Lesbians and Gays: A new Scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1191-1210. - Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and rela-

Mapping hate speech online

tionship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23,81–99. - Pace, U. Zappulla C. (2010). Il ruolo dell’ attaccamento insicuro nell’ insorgenza di sintomi depressivi, problemi comportamentali e ideazione suicidaria in adolescenza. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo , 14, 577-576. - Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and homophobic verbal content: The Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) Scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513-528. - Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., Norcini Pala, A. (2009). Determinanti del comportamento prosociale in caso di bullismo omofobico. Psicologia dell’educazione, 3, 237-254. - Silenzio, V. M. B., Pena, J. B., Duberstein, P. R., Cerel, J., Knox, K. L. (2007). Sexual orientation and risk factors for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 2017–2019.

THE AUTHOR

Greta Verri graduated in Clinical Psychology and Health Protection at the University ‘La Sapienza’ in Rome. She is the author of the thesis “Suicidal ideation and family functioning in LGBT teens.” CONTACTS: greta_verri@libero.it

Mapping hate speech online

V. MAP OF HATE SPEECH ON-LINE

Active sheet #1

The idea of mapping hate-speech online came from the need to analyze the context and, subsequently, to apply common methodologies to local, national and international contexts, as well as virtual places which often reflect the background of the navigators.

The realization of the map was made by integrating the existing literature regarding discrimination with the knowledge gained through the workshop. The mapping was carried out according to the steps: - Morning session: “Mapping Hate Speech online”; - Analysis of the existing literature: through the use of slides, trainers and facilitators showed the participants the scientific literature concerning discrimination (“Lessico delle discriminazioni tra società, diritto e istituzioni”, Diabasis 2008 di Th. Casadei; “Introduction to sociology”. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009); - Brainstorming on hate speech online; - Discussion on hate speeches online previously collected: each participants collected, analyzed and realized a personal map of the hate speech es collected on their survey on the internet; - Analysis in the plenary of hate speeches online and creation of a common

Mapping hate speech online

map. The map shown below, is therefore an abstract form that represents the real situation as perceived by the young participants: on the basis of scientific models proposed on discrimination, they have modeled a map that represents the situation as seen and experienced by themselves in their daily life online. The various types of discrimination learned through the scientific literature have been integrated with new discoveries found by the participants, so that complement the existing models. The map, in its being a sort of brutal tale of the current situation, nevertheless represent a realistic snapshot of the discriminatory words online. However, the speed of a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;society 2.0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, makes the map a tool that changes day by day, with just a click, a post or a tweet. It can be integrated, improved and hopefully, one day, reduced or deleted. Words, strong words. Suitable for those who are thirsty for truth and desire to change the world, putting his/her hands directly into the words.

Mapping hate speech online

Chapter Two

Prevention of Hate Speech online

Prevention of hate speech online

I. Hate Speech: not what but how you say it

Diletta De Matteis psichologist

Words are learned, taught, read, imagined, heard and repeated. Words are used by humans beings to define an object, an event, an emotion. Words are often used to discriminate, to point out, to accuse, to denigrate and hurt the others. Herein we will try to theoretically outline the effects of words and communication on relationships with others, with a particular stress to the world of social networks and the improper use of this instrument. Theoretically, words are studied in various fields: through the syntax we study how information is transmitted; through the semantics we study the meaning that the sender and receiver share in order to communicate; finally, through the pragmatics of communication we study how communication influence the behavior of the interlocutors themselves. Especially this last aspect of communication (pragmatics of communication), that affects the psychological area, it was deepened in 1967 by Watzlaswick, Beavin and Jackson through the publication of the book â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pragmatics of Human Communicationâ&#x20AC;?. The communication is here studied as reason of the behavior resulting from the interaction between partners, in other words as the mode of communication between two persons, which interact between them, can influence the relationship between themselves and their behavior.

Prevention of hate speech online

On this basis we can affirm that a word is perceived and encoded both regarding the environment where it is expressed and both from who it is received and sent. Thus, in summary, the words that we use are vectors not only of the information that we want to transmit, but also of the relationship with the partner with whom we are communicating. From here, we can assume that a word which is defined not-politically-correct and discriminatory can take on different values with respect to the context in which it “Therefore, hypothetiis expressed.

cally, you can not define a word as discriminating or hate speech without taking into account the context and the situation in which it is expressed”

For example, the word “stupid” to define a person has a semantic value essentially negative and it defines a person incapable or deficient in something, up to having a real handicap.

In the current Italian social slang the word “stupid” is not exclusively used with its original meaning, but takes different meanings according to the context; for example, in a conversation between two friends, one could use an exclamation like “What are you stupid!” following a nice joke of the other, with a purely playful and affective value and not in its original meaning. On the contrary, in another context such as family, the same expression used by a parent to his son, who missed a school assignment, would have a devaluing and emotionally meaning negative for the son. Another example would be the word “nigger” to describe black people. Among them, people of color at times, use it in a joking way as a slang to call themselves; but, if it were a person from a different ethnic group to use this appellation, it would have a different meaning and it would be considered offensive. Therefore, hypothetically, you can not define a word as discriminating or hate speech without taking into account the context and the situation in which it is expressed. In the book “Pragmatics of Human Communication” five simple aspect of

Prevention of hate speech online

communication are set out, so-called ‘axioms’, that define the communication itself with respect to the relationship between the participants in the conversation. In this context, I believe it is important to mention two axioms in particular, the second and the fifth axiom of communication. The second axiom states that in a conversation both levels of communication and of relationship are simultaneously activated. An Interaction is not, in this context, a mere transmission of information, but it represents n aspect, which th e authors define as the aspect of command, which defines the relationship between the two “it is not the meaning to be the crucial individuals and impose a bepoint of the offense, but it is instead the perception that the person has in relation havior of communicative response. to the word expressed by another with

which it has a particular relationship/ interconnection”

“All such relationship statements are about one or several of the following assertions: “This is how I see myself ... this is how I see you ... this is how I see you seeing me ... “and so forth in theoretically infinite regress”(cit.) According to this perspective, two individuals while communicating should exchange, like a mirror, the image of the other and of him/herself, giving a confirmation or disconfirmation to the other and to himself. This concept, moved into real and practical perspective, allows us to catch a glimpse of why a person may feel offended or not by a word as it is not the meaning to be the crucial point of the offense, but it is instead the perception that the person has in relation to the word expressed by another with which it has a particular relationship / interconnection. In the fifth axiom, however, they are defined the types of relationships that are created between individuals during every conversation. In every interaction and exchange of communication symmetrical or complementary behavioral patterns are created, based respectively on equality or difference. In other words,

Prevention of hate speech online

the two interlocutors are involved in a relation concerning two subjects that can be based on a comparison of equal or, instead, on two different positions, such as one-up and one-down. A clear example of a complementary relationship may be the relationship between mother and son or between teacher and pupil, while a symmetrical relationship could be between two classmates. Through these two simple axioms we can affirm that we can not define words as discriminating words or hate speech, but the relationship between the people who use them. This aspect is also visible in the interaction among groups. For example there are conceptions / stereotypes that are used to name a type of people belonging to a group, such as the entrepreneurs, the aristocrats, the poor people, the homosexuals or, in less general contexts, such as in the area of Rome are used to define groups compared with neighborhoods (the ‘Pariolini’, the ‘borgatari’) or for the team supported (‘laziali’, ‘romanisti’). These definitions are not semantically disparaging or discriminating, but used in certain contexts may have different values, and may be perceived as insulting or discriminating. In conclusion, the words were not created to offend, denigrate, insult or oppress the others; on the contrary, it depends on the contexts and the ways in which the words are used to give the negative sense. Social Networking and cyber bullying Now let’s move from the theoretical vision to a practical vision of the power of words and communication about people. There are many examples of disqualifying communication and how it can be made insufficient, thus causing feelings of inadequacy in the person object of the discriminating words, but in this field it would be good to focus on a phenomenon that is currently growing up in the real and virtual world: the use of social networks and cyber-bullying. Starting from some data, extrapolated from the results of the research “The boys and cyber bullying”, carried out by ‘Ipsos’ for ‘Save the Children’, social networks are the place of attack preferred by the modern bully, the cyber-bully, and about 2/3 of the teens surveyed report that this type of bullying is the “main threat that hovers at school, in your bedroom, in the football field, day and night”

Prevention of hate speech online

(cited). The old bully used to act cruelly and molest his/her victims in confined and defined environments, such as schools or youth hang-outs, and allowed his/her victims to find protection in their intimate places and family, secure in the love of the family or of intimate friends; on the contrary, the cyber bully, through social networks, reveals its abuses and discrimination through comments, mockery and anything offensive can be expressed through the â&#x20AC;&#x153;virtual placesâ&#x20AC;?. The cyberbully sneaks in a virtual network harassing its victims in any place and in a world where comments are read and shared by several people. Now we try to evaluate the interactions between the bully and his/her victim through a pragmatic communication. The phrases, statements, speeches, offensive words are thrown against the victim through social networks and in most cases they are read by the friends of both the bully and the victim: thus, the sharing of the offense is more extensive than an verbal offense launched in a classroom.. The received message is redirected to two paths: the first redirection is the semantic meaning of the word or phrase used, that is, the level of content; the second redirection refers to the belief that the person has on him/herself compared to the other and to the opinion consequently received back from the other. In the case of a victim of bullying, s/he obviously perceives him/herself as wrong and inadequate, automatically causing a decrease of self-esteem. Even if the provocation is virtual, there will be a reaction to the comments by the victim, which can be of two types: silent or answered back. If the victim prefers not to respond to insults, the reason could be for a refusal to suffer insults or because he thinks he does not have the capacity to respond in kind: in this way, with the silence, s/he communicates of not wanting to talk to the bully. Such behavior could spur the bully to two different reactions: the bully might perpetuate the derision or it could end the persecution. If the victim reacted to the insult by responding in kind to the bully, the scenarios could be similar with respect to the reaction of the bully, but with different meanings: the bully might stop persecuting the victim because s/he does not recognize him/her as a victim anymore, or s/he may act more aggressive at both

Prevention of hate speech online

verbal and physical level to override the other. The two positions shown in the fifth axiom, complementary and symmetrical, in this context would lead to the case where the bully is able to express his supremacy, both through the silence and through the verbal defeat of the victim: in this case the bully will be in ‘one-up’ position and the victim in ‘one-down’ position. This complementarity will therefore result in a chain reaction in which the bully will have a perception of him/herself as dominating and a domineering person and the victim will perceives him/herself as weak and unable to react, thereby increasing the self-esteem of one (the bully) and automatically decreasing that of the victim, which will be used to feeling submissive. If, on the contrary, the victim could have an equal conversation and effectively respond to the verbal aggression of the bully, the relational position “If, on the contrary, the victim could could be symmetric, thus allowing have an equal conversation and efthe victim to feel as subordinate fectively respond to the verbal aggresand inferior, but at the same level sion of the bully, the relational position with the others: automatically in could be symmetric, thus allowing the the relationship between the two, victim to feel as subordinate and infethe roles of victim and bully would rior, but at the same level” no longer have reason to exist. (Of course, as in real life, communication may be extended and commented by ‘friends’ of the two particip ant s (bully and victim), since the comment is shared in a common virtual space and potentially public, and therefore may cause a flood of comments derived from the first and that can continue indefinitely. Such comments can be of support to the victim or may increase the bullying. In both cases, the comments would lead the person, both the victim and the bully, to create a rigid belief in the role that has been assigned. If comments derived from the initial message were pro-victim (messages supporting the victim or messages attacking the bully) the perception in return that will receive the victim will be of being unable to respond to the bully, or being a weak person who needs to be defended, thus causing greater self-devaluation and no-confidence in their own abilities) Since adolescence is the age at which young people form their own charac-

Prevention of hate speech online

ter and seek their independence, being stereotyped or act/suffer discriminating words could result in negative experiences that have consequences in the short or long term. For example, the above mentioned article deals with the the possible shortterm consequences that cyber-bullying can cause both socially and psychologically. The results of the interviews show that the effects may vary. For example, the discomfort could have repercussions on the “school performance (38%), or may lead the victim to avoid opportunities of socialization (65%), thus creating a social-phobic disorder, and at worst could lead to depression (57%) “(cited). What could be the solutions that parents or teachers, adults in general, could implement to solve the problem? The answer to this question might create a list of possible solutions, but none of them could be completely correct if solution to the problem are taken external. Let’s name a few: some parents / teachers have proposed to eliminate or to limit the use of social networks to adults people, but this would not change the misuse or the denigration/discrimination of others; some parents compulsively control the social network profiles of their children to ensure that they are not insulted or denigrated; some parents / teachers try to punish acts of discrimination or denigration, but many other solutions could be sought, however, that would lead the victims to feel unable to protect him/herself and the bullies to satisfy their ‘thirst for power’. Some of the so-called adults have never thought that prevention is better than a cure? Where young people learn discrimination, fear of the others, hate and aversion to what is different? Perhaps, before looking for the solution at national or international level, they might seek for the solution in themselves and in the way they act with others, by teaching young people what is equality and not just professing it in retrospect.

Prevention of hate speech online

Bibliography - Pragmatics of Human Communication, P. Watzlawick, J. H. Beavin, D. D. Jackson, 1967

- Cyberbullismo: Save the Children, il 72% degli adolescenti e giovanissimi italiani lo avverte come il fenomeno sociale più pericoloso del proprio tempo; http:// www.savethechildren.it/

- Il bullismo sui social network: crociata anti Facebook delle mamme; www. ilrestodelcarlino.it

THE AUTHOR

Diletta De Matteis is a psychologist licensed by the Regione Puglia and attending the postgraduate school at the Center for Strategic Therapy ‘Giorgio Nardone’. She strongly believes that communication is the main key for the individual, relational and social success development and that there is a possible resolution to the social and relational problems exclusively when the two sides of the coin are ready to be obscured by one from the other on certain occasions and that neither aches completely to override the other. CONTACTS: dilettadematteis@gmail.com

Prevention of hate speech online

II. Prevention of hate speech

Maria Rosaria Stincone

wlefare worker and familiar mediator

During a TV debate someone, in relation to the measures for preventing wars and conflicts, let slip that basically it would be enough that Christians followed the evangelical message to “love your neighbor as yourself” so that, not only the life of the individual would be more holy, but probably there would be no conflicts, no wars. Now, beyond the possible objections to the meaning of ‘your neighbor’ (perhaps is considered worthy of love only someone who is close, belonging to their social ethnic and religious group, so ‘not next’ is one who is an enemy out of this circle), those who made this reflection probably meant the neighbor in the correct meaning of the Gospel, that of any human being, with its diversity and otherness. But the point is not that. What has stimulated my reflection is the consideration: how is it possible to love your neighbor, that is, those who are different from me, when I do not love myself at all? I use this unusual question to launch another challenge/question: how many of the people that we know really love themselves? In relation to my daily life, I work as family mediator in a family counseling center, and a good part of my professional activity is aimed at building or rebuilding self-esteem of my users, unable to face the difficulties of existence due to lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem and, certainly, lack of love for themselves.

Prevention of hate speech online

Here is the crucial point, to find out how many of my users truly love/esteem themselves. Some examples: Do the guys whizzing at 180 per hour in the middle of the night after a night at the disco love/esteem themselves? Do the the guys who drink till you drop or using hard drugs love/esteem themselves? Do the many women who continue to live with abusive and violent men love/esteem themselves? Do men harassed and exploited by their sadistic and exploiters employers love/esteem themselves? I could give many other examples. What I want to emphasize now is to analyze the final question that is connected to the initial one: is this type of users, stimulated by the imperative of the Gospel, their neighbors, because they do not love themselves?

â&#x20AC;&#x153;When we talk about prevention of the culture of hatred implemented in our Social Services (...) I also refer in detail to the daily activity aimed at managing conflicts between parents, whether they are married and living together or separated (because it is the parental conflict that creates discomfort in children, not separation)â&#x20AC;?

able to love

Of course, my question is only a challenge and a stimulus to attract attention to the social work that we daily carry out and that essentially it is the most effective way of preventing conflicts and, in general, the culture of hatred. This activity, carried out with competence and professionalism, it can be much more effective in preventing culture of hatred than the coercive measures envisaged by the legislation in force and, at times, conceived as possible deterrents. This happens because, to draw attention to the deep discomfort that goes along with the growth of so many children and adolescents with very problematic family situations (situations that seriously affect their self-esteem and love for themselves, and increase the mistrust and distrust towards adults) may be the best way to prevent the culture of hatred and social discrimination. When we talk about prevention of the culture of hatred implemented in our Social Services, we do not mean, therefore, only those projects and initiatives, for example, aimed to set up the counseling centers for immigrants, women and child victims of violence and deviated adolescents, or those targeted training

Prevention of hate speech online

programs to strengthen parenting skills, but I also refer in detail to the daily activity aimed at managing conflicts between parents, whether they are married and living together or separated (because it is the parental conflict that creates discomfort in children, not separation) who exploit their children in order to fight and win personal and legal wars that only provoke suffering for their children. The impairment and offences faced by children and adolescents torn out by the so-called ‘loyalty conflict’ and the so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome (also known as P.A.S.), look quite different. These children not only develop mistrust towards adults, but almost also show symptoms of low self-esteem, lack of love for themselves and antisocial behaviors, aggressive or self-marginalizing. We do not need experts to understand and to explain that, behind the hate speech on the web and in children and teens on which have a certin facination, there are disturbed and disturbing individualities, with a family history certainly dysfunctional, from the point of view of the attention and response to the needs expressed in childhood. For this reason it is important to underline that the best way to combat the problem of hate-speech online must be centered on the direct and indirect prevention that may play the family and the school, with the support of psychosocial services of the territory because, once again, it is a much more painless and inexpensive way for the society to prevent deviant problems rather than dealing with them when they explode in those virulent forms difficult to defeat.

THE AUTHOR

Maria Rosaria Stincone is gratuated in Philosophy and Planning and Organization of Social Services, specialized in Family Mediation, and works as a social worker at the ASL Lecce She founded the NGO in Poggiardo “Bread and Tulips”, carrying out various initiatives to promote and raise awareness on the issues of territory defense, the integration of disabled people and the gender issues. She teaches social matters in various training agencies in the Province of Lecce, in courses for OSS operative for children, carers, etc.. She is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education at the University of Salento in the Research Laboratories of Applied Social and Professional Methods and Techniques. CONTACTS: mariarosariastincone@libero.it

Prevention of hate speech online

III. Institutions and protection of gender discriminations

Alessia Ferreri

equal opportunitY ADVISOR of the province of lecce

Equal Opportunity Advisor Equal Opportunity Advisor is the institutional figure who defends workers from sex discriminations and promotes equal opportunities for men and women. The Advisor is appointed by Order in Council 196/2000 and by Ministry of Welfare together with the Ministry of Equal Opportunities. The Advisor is finally appointed on behalf of Regions and Provinces members. The Advisor has to prove with documents his/her competences and his/her knowledge about female labor, equal opportunities and labor laws. The term of office is four years but it can be renewed for two times. Equal Opportunity Advisor has got national, regional and provincial relevancies. Regional and provincial Equal Opportunity Advisor is located in the regional and provincial department he/she belongs by Order in Council 469 on December 1997. Advisorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department is funded by Ministry of Welfare together with Ministry of Equal Opportunities. The activity of Advisor is funded for indemnities and reimbursements of expenses. All the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities are chosen by the Advisor who decides in autonomy according to Law.

Prevention of hate speech online

(Duties and role) Advisor’s duties were decided as referred to in Article 8 or the draft of law 125/1991. Equal Opportunity Advisor works in the name of the State in order to make respect ‘the principle of no discrimination’, and to promote equal opportunities for male and female employees. In particular, his/her duties are: • to prevent sex discriminations in finding and having a job, in making a career, in guaranteeing the right working conditions including salary and pension; •

to improve and promote positive activities for this purpose thanks to nationals and locals communities;

“Equal Opportunity Advisor works in the name of the State in order to make respect ‘the principle of no discrimination’, and to promote equal opportunities for male and female employees”

porvate labor;

• to promote equal opportunities among national and regional communities; • to promote activities that go towards the realization of the equal opportunities;

• to promote equal optunities in the world of public and pri-

• to co-operate with regional and provincial departments in order to prevent discriminations and to instruct people about these problems; •

to inform people about sex discriminations and equal opportunities;

•

to check the results of the activities organized;

•

to co-operate with local departments to actuate all the activities.

Equal Opportunity Advisor is the figure the Law establishes in order to promote and control the putting into effect of equal principles, equal opportunities, and no discrimination in the world of labor.

Prevention of hate speech online

S/he can act as public functionary if s/he observes a discrimination in public or private workplaces. For discrimination we mean every act or behavior that discriminates an employee for his/her sex. Equal Opportunity Advisor activities have got two institutional values: 1) Promotional value: The department works with offices, institutions and trade unions, for actuating bills for equal opportunities in the world of labor to allow workers to spend in a better way the time at work and the time with family. 2) Check value and protection anti-discrimination Councillor parity makes workers respect the principles of equality and equal opportunities: no sex discriminations in finding and having a job, in making a career, in having the proper working conditions including salary and relationship among colleagues. In cases of sex discrimination at workplace (public or private), the same victim, trades union, interested associations can report it to the Provincial Advisor. The complaint has to be written and sent by post or by fax. It has to contain the authorization to process personal data and has to contain the authorization to contact the employer. The councillor values the situation and decides if the ground of complaint are really relevant. In this case the Advisor ensures his/her assisted privacy, and helps him/her offering advice, meeting the companies, promoting the possible solutions of conciliation and mediation. The conciliation or mediation is to prefer to a procedural activity because it is less expensive and requires a shorter time. In the case that the Councillor detects discriminations against an employee, he/she can: â&#x20AC;˘ Promote, according with the interested a conciliation procedure as referred to in Article 410 of the draft law 165/2001, â&#x20AC;˘

Report to an employment tribunal with the delegation of the interested,

Prevention of hate speech online

or he/she can act ad adiuvandum in the civil proceeding undertaken by the interested. Who can apply People who can apply to Councillor Parity for having free consultancy or assistance are: Public and private employees who reckon that: •

their position is been unfairly reduced after the maternity leave;

•

their maternity or parental entitlement has not been established;

• during the job interview, have been treated unfairly because the employer has asked them private information, or to firm in advance a letter of resignation, or to perform a pregnancy test; • they have been discriminated in having the job, in having information about maternity leave, or simply for being female rather than male; •

they have been stopped in making a career;

•

they haven’t had equal pay for equal work compared to other colleagues,

•

they have had an unfair dismissal;

Public Institutions that: •

want establish Equality Bodies;

• has to present the Three-year Plan about positive actions as referred to in Article 48 of the draft of law 198/2006 Equal opportunities for male and female, • want receive found for actuate positive actions as referred to in Article 44 of the draft of law 198/2006; • want increase the presence of women in the world of labor, and promote female careers; •

want fight sex discrimination;

Private companies that:

Prevention of hate speech online

•

want give value to women;

•

want fight sex discrimination;

• want receive grants for actuate positive actions as referred to in Article 44 of the draft of law 198/2006; • want receive grants for the corporate reorganization and the flexibility at work as referred to in Article 9 of the draft of law 53/2000: Support for maternity and paternity, for right to cure and education and for the timing management in the cities.

THE AUTHOR

Alessia Ferreri is presently Equal Opportunity Advisor of the Province of Lecce. Lawyer, expert in Humar Resources and Gender Policies; Professional Mediator; Project consultant for training courses, vocational guidance and management; coordinator of educational projects, Trainer for post-graduate, post-high school, business, adults and school dropouts. Rapporteur and organizer of several conferences, seminars and workshops; author of several publications, surveys, textbooks, lecture notes, material for f.a.d. She has been awarded with the rewards for her social commitment: “Premio Imid 2010” (marzo 2010); “Donna del sud”: Premio all’impegno (marzo 2008);“Il Riccio dell’angelo-Premio Effemeridi (2008); “Gli eletti del Salento: Personalità che onora il Salento”(aprile 2004). Specialisations: Professional Mediator; Human Resources Communication: Management and Human Resources Development; Foreign Trade and International Contracts; Bullying and anti-discrimination protection; Gender policies; Perfected in juvenile and family law. CONTACT: consiglierediparita@provincia.le.it

Prevention of hate speech online

IV. “Speeches”: Activity for Activists, trainers And youth/social workers

ACTIVE SHEET #2

As we have already had occasion to say before, we tried to give the workshop a theoretical and scientific aspect that would resolve the problem of hate speech online, but also an experiential and practical feature useful for daily fight against discrimination. Thus, the idea to create an ad hoc activity that can be used against hate speech, on and off-line. The intervention of Tony Donno (expert in Communication on Visual disabilities), during the morning session “Prevention of discrimination,” has been instrumental and decisive for the creation of the proposed activity. To him, therefore, we give our thanks for the idea and support to the ideation of the activity. The realization of the activity was carried out by adapting the activity of Tony to the model of the Compass Manual of the Council of Europe, in order to to make it usable by anyone, and improved in the course of time and situations.

Prevention of hate speech online

SPEECHES “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” Ludwig Wittgenstein

Main Theme Disability and disablism Related RighTs Discrimination and Intolerance, Education, Human Rights in general, Hate Speech. Complexity (from 1 to 4): 3 gROUP SIZE 20 – 30 TimE 120 minutes AbstracT The activity explores the key concepts of a definition of diversity and includes questionnaires and discussions on the theme of words used to describe a diversity.

Prevention of hate speech online

ObjectiveS - To develop critical sense on aware use of words - To develop sense of solidarity and empathy towards other people - To enhance the knowledge about words and diversities MaterialS - Flip chart (or, alternatively, a blackboard) - A4 papers (at least a couple per participant) - A small sponge-ball (or alternatively, a paper ball) - Colored markers, crayons or pens - One copy of “Handout 1” and “Handout 2” INSTRUCTIONS 1. The facilitator starts inviting all the participants to sit in circle, together with the facilitator. 2. The facilitator starts the activity introducing the theme of diversity, asking to the participants the differences among the group members. 3. Now start explaining that the activity deals with diversity and speeches, with reference to the condition of visual disability. Through a brainstorming, the facilitator asks to the participants to define the meaning of ‘blindness’. In turn, the facilitator passes the sponge-ball from participant to participant, who is going to say his/her definition on ‘blindness’. 4. The facilitator reports all the definitions on a flip chart. 5. At this stage, the facilitator introduces the definitions of blindness, as reported on the ‘Handout 1’ and writes it on a flip chart. Then, he/she starts and facilitates a discussion on the difference among the definitions given by the participants and the one given by the facilitator.

Prevention of hate speech online

6. Once the discussion is finishes, the facilitators write on a new flip chart the list reported on the ‘Handout 2’. Each participant will have to draw up his/her personal classification of the speeches that he/she prefers to use and think about the different contexts and situations in which they would prefer to use the words. 7. The facilitator gives 15 minutes to the participants to draw up their classification. 8. In turn, the participants enunciate their list, The facilitator will report a ‘score’ on a flip chart / blackboard. 9. For every expression/speech/word the facilitator is going to task to the participants who used it and why. 10. Finally, the assembly is going to start De Briefing on the value and sense of words and speeches and their use and weight on people’s life. DE BRIEFING AND EVALUATION The activity offers many causes for reflections that may vary from each group and depending on the words used for the exercise (see Tips for facilitators and variations below). - How did you feel during the activity? Did you encounter any difficulty in labelling a definition, a person or a diversity? - Did you find any difficulties in giving a definition on visual disability? - Is a formal and ‘official’ definition enough to describe the reality of every single person? - How our culture affects the way we use words for describing things and persons? - Were you surprised by reading the different way to define disability? Could you ever imagine that these words are currently used in official, formal and scientific contexts? - What are the implications for a bas use of words? And their use out of context?

Prevention of hate speech online

- Does it exist a limit to a politically correct use of words? - How important is non verbal communication when using words (smiles, irony, gestures, voice tone)? - What are the implications of the use of words online, where nonverbal communication is absent? TIPS FOR FACILITATORS AND VARIATIONS The activity is particularly appropriate for NGOs activists who deal with Human Rights. Moreover, it could be interesting its implementation within context of formal education (schools, universities). The activity could be easily varied with the introduction of other types of disabilities or diversities (sex, gender), with a proper research of word used for describing the category. The facilitator should leave prejudices on background trying to let them come out by themselves during the discussion: his/her role will mainly be to let the participants understand how a lack of knowledge could bring to a bad use of words and speeches. FOLLOW-UP The activity could be used in a context of analysis of Human Rights. As follow up, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Map of Hate Speech onlineâ&#x20AC;? realized by SEYF could be analyzed by the participants. Moreover, the group may create a new map according to the new team.

Prevention of hate speech online

Handout 1 Blindness: â&#x20AC;&#x153;unable to see because of injury, disease, or a congenital conditionâ&#x20AC;? (Oxford Dictionary) Handout 2 1.

Blind man

Visual disabled

3. Blind 4. Eyeless 5.

Vision impaired

6. One-eyed 7.

Visually impaired persons

Low sighted

9. Visionless 10.

Visually handicapped

11.

Visually challenged

Synonyms for handout 2 were extracted from online scientific treatises, corporate/governmental communications of different historical periods

Chapter Three

Combating Hate Speech online

Combating hate speech online

I. The role of NGOs In the field of Human Rights

Attilio Pisanò

Prof. Human rights Università del salento

Attilio Pisanò: «As professor of Human Rights at the University of Salento, it is my pleasure to contribute to the topic developed in the project. My specific contribution will have as its starting point a short journey into the history of fundamental rights, which aims to show the novelty of the role that NGOs have played in the internal scene for the promotion of Human Rights. First and foremost, one must ask onself what is the significance of the concept of “Human Rights”, so often misused and rhetoric. From a scientific point of view, when speaking of Human Rights, we mean “a series of rights (subjective prerogatives and individual interests) which are protected by Constitutional law or International law” Hence, we have a series of rights which have been labelled the so-called ‘Core Human Rights Treaties’, the most important international instruments in the field of Human Rights.

A brief historical overview will help us to contextualize better our discussion. I will cite therefore some of the landmarks in the history of human rights. 1. End of the 18th century: the birth of the “Rights of Men” in the revolutions of the bourgeoisie: the various American Bills of Rights and the French Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen; 2.

1948: the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of the Right;

Combating hate speech online

1993: The Global UN Conference on Human Rights.

Against the background of the Enlightment philosophy of the 1700s (1789), infused with a spirit of renewal which considered Human Rights as the most suitable instrument to affirm the principle of equality, “subjective rights” emerge as philosophical concepts (natural rights), which are then transformed into “judicial rights” (rights of men) due to their codification in the declarations of the bourgeois revolutions. In class, I normally stress to my students that with the “bourgeois revolutions, fundamental rights descend from the hyperuranium (the world of ideas) and become a part of political and historical reality”. From the end of the 18th century until the second half of the 20th century (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) the recognition and the protection of subjective rights falls exclusively to the State. There is no room for non-state actors (NGOs, associations, etc). The State is the only actor that can define which are the subjective rights and to recognise, protect and infringe those rights. Paradoxically, the Nazi and Fascist revolutions, which show how the law can violate rights, took place in full respect of the legality of the state. During all of the fascist 1920s in fact, the Albertino Statute, was in force, the liberal Italian Constitutional Charter of 1848; a flexible charter as it could be amended by law by the simple will of Parliament without the need for a procedure for a constitutional revision. This way it was possible, that many freedoms were treaded (one thinks of the racial laws during the racist regime), by Parliament, which as the expression of the will of the state, had the supreme power to change the Constitution and to give law whatever kind of content. After the First World War, the League of Nations, the first international organization, signalled a first careful will to prevent the horrors of war from repeating. Nevertheless, it proved to be a big failure in failing to prevent the Second World War. The problem of re-establishing an international order, presented itself again at the end of the Second World War, when the international community, after fifty years of wars, saw itself confronted again with the problem of how to prevent the barbaric acts, the horrors, the atrocities of the Nazi and fascist regimes. The answer, with the birth of the United Nations (1945), was to formalize a document that could have universal value and that pointed to the “dignity recognition of dignity to all members of the human family” (Universal Declaration Preamble).

Combating hate speech online

The first two most important documents sprung from the new international order established with the birth of the United Nations (1945) were the Convention on the Punishment of Genocide (9 December 1948) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted the following day (10 December 1948). The Declaration of 1948, therefore, represents a real breakthrough in the field of human rights for two specific reasons: a) The Declaration is based on the dignity of Human Rights to be recognized to every single person on which it is built, then, a catalog of rights b) the model of the United Nations breaks the union between the State and rights, in such a way that the state is not the only subjects authorized to have expertise on individual rights. While increasing the number of persons who are able to express themselves on Human Rights, then it is easier to create a counter that can balance the State Power, tremendous power: just consider that, today, almost all the rights are violated by States. Among these subjects, there are United Nations, supranational entity, which during its sixty years of operation developed a series of activities to protect Human Rights. They developed international treaties on Human Rights and support the creation of regional organizations that defined and protected human rights on a regional basis. Among the latter, I just mention the Council of Europe that drafted the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CEDU, Rome, 1950) according to which there is now a European Court of Human Rights capable of giving supranational protection to citizens from the signatory States of the Convention. In addition to the Council of Europe, we should mention other organizations: the Organization of American States, the African Union, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Confederation and the States of South East Asia Organization. Moreover, legal and institutional entities that have the right to talk about human rights started to increase. The individual, who until 1948 was considered as a simple ‘object’ of International Law, and which has no privilege recognized by International Law, began to be regarded, therefore, as the ‘subject’ of International Law. In this perspective, non-governmental organizations begin to spread over, whose role as a widespread literature is “the real news realized after 1948.” Among the most eloquent examples it includes ‘Amnesty International’, ‘Human Rights Watch’, ‘Nessuno Tocchi Caino’, alongside more technical examples such as the ‘Freedom House’ project, a series of initiatives that arise from civil society

Combating hate speech online

and NGO-owned. The path made by Human Rights since 1948, therefore, shows us clearly that not how much only Human Rights developed, which means that all legal situations protected by law and international law, but also show us how much the number of subjects who became rights-holders increased. More precisely, when we deal with Human Rights we have also to face the so-called ‘rights specification’, a phenomenon which is now growing up thanks to the pressure from civil society and NGOs that aim to protect particular ‘vulnerable’ actors (women, children, disabled people). However, we need to better understand the mechanisms by which civil society, and with it public opinion and associations, can affect government decisions and policies and, thus, can contribute to the protection of Human “when we deal with Human Rights we Rights. An fundamental year have also to face the so-called ‘rights specification’, a phenomenon which is now for the role of NGOs is 1993, growing up thanks to the pressure from when dozen organizations civil society and NGOs that aim to protect participate in the World Conparticular ‘vulnerable’ actors” ference in Vienna. After the Fall of Berlin Wall (1989) there is finally a global approach to Human Rights that goes beyond the ideological confrontation between Liberal West and the Socialist East. A confrontation and a debate on Human rights should based more on culture than on ideology, because all the ideologies fell down together with Berlin Wall. The role of NGOs, therefore, is essential not only with regard to promotion of Human Rights, but also for the recognition and protection of the same Human Rights. To stress the importance of NGOs, I would like to mention an important scientific contribution of two American sociologists, Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. In an article published 2005 (Emilie Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui -equal authorship “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 110, 2005), authors applied a quantitative method for an analyzing the formal level of Human Rights (as all states of the international community refer to the international treaties on Human Rights). On the basis of the reports prepared by Amnesty International and Human Rights

Combating hate speech online

Watch, they controlled state by state gap expressed between treaties ratification and the actual practice of Human Rights. Combining the data of the research, the above mentioned sociologists noticed an almost ‘scientific’ correspondence: the greater the role of civil society, the greater the role of the NGOs dealing with human rights, the smaller the gap between formal level represented by the International Law of Human Rights and the substantial structure related to the effective protection of Rights set. The data and its diagram can provide us with different insights. In states like China, for example, characterized by a totalitarian regime which ratifies all the treaties on Human Rights but that does not leave enough space for the needs of rights and for NGOs, the diagram revealed a weak point represented by little space represented by civil society over the State that has a large and uncontrolled power. Similarly, Egypt has recently moved from an authoritarian situation to a situation of complete opening up to a system with different parties but, in absence of civil society nothing really changed, since there is no social pressure by civil society itself. The totalitarian States have an interest in not giving space to civil society. By contrast, NGOs must operate and propose their work and their needs especially in those difficult contexts. If we consider our Western world, where system with multi-parties developed, there is a public opinion, there are associations, movements, we realize that the role of NGOs and the civil society is stronger because they operates in free societies. In our States it is possible to create a network, a base that, through political pressure, can potentially protect or at least give voice to all Human Rights: here we can take into account, as example, an obvious violation of human rights, the right to health or the right to build up a retirement assistance that, due to the effects of welfare and economical crisis, are being flaked off. Violation of social rights is a sort of ‘disease’ in respect of which we have a strong antibody: it is our opportunity to discuss, post, publish, give ourselves the possibility to be read and seen on almost ll the possible means of communication, thus stimulating a circulation of ideas that put pressure on policy and public opinion. About the specific issue of Hate Speech, it certainly represents a sensitive topic. By definition, Human Rights are rights that can be applied ‘erga omnes’ and, as already stated, Human Rights are subjective interests that are protected by law. The objective interests are many: interest in life, for example, become right to life, so freedom become right to freedom. But self-interest to paint, or watch tv, isn’t necessarily to result in a right to paint or watch tv. The main distinction between

Combating hate speech online

interests of those deserving and undeserving of protection should be placed in the absoluteness of rights: rights therefore must be applied ‘erga omnes’, on everyone. At this point, the level is ethical and regulatory, or rather the levels should lies on the ‘need to be’ and ‘how it should be from a philosophical point of view’. For instance, my friend of mine could prevent me from watching TV, but he can not stop me from expressing my opinion about it, or to leave the house. On a theoretical, normative, ethics level all the rights are absolute rights. The idea of limiting or infringing a right it should not be accepted at all. However, if you move from the level of ‘having to be’ to the level of ‘being’, concretely, we realize that there are conflicts between rights. A classic example can be the one between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. The Ilva factory could also represent an Italian current case study: the right to health and the right to work clearly conflict with each other. In this case, what has changed, compared to the past, is the fact that the Judiciary entered the issue of rights, stressing the question whether it is more important the right to health or the right to work: the Judiciary says that the right to health is an expression of the right to life, which represents an inviolable right to our Constitutional order. Therefore, the case of Ilva the Judiciary stated by keeping the right to work on a lower level, under the right to health. In conclusion, it is difficult to find an abstract and deductive solution to the conflict among rights because daily life has countless sides, sometimes impossible to unify. What is certain is that vigilance and attention is still required, especially from NGOs, so that, behind a presumed exercise of right, there is not not actually an occult and concealed violation of other rights.

THE AUTHOR

Attilio Pisano graduated in Law in 1998 at the University of Florence with a thesis in Philosophy of Law ‘The debate on the universality of human rights’. Lawyer, Doctor in Juridical-Bioethical Sciences, he focuses its research on the Juridical -Philosophical relationship individual-society. Former professor of Political Science, from school. A. 2006/2007 he teaches Philosophy of Law and Human Rights at the Faculty of Political Science and International Relations. He is member of the Center for Bioethics and Human Rights of the Secretariat Encyclopedia of Bioethics and Legal Science. For his studies on Nicola Spedalieri he was awarded, in 2008, with the honorary citizenship of the town of Bronte (CT). CONTACTS: attilio.pisano@unisalento.it

Combating hate speech online

II. Hate Speech: the educational role of Education

Anna Rita Merico

women’ studies expert and theacher elementary school

The issue of Hate Speech is difficult to be dealt with due to the lack of bibliography, for which anyway we can start to build temporary perimeters in which we can begin to give it a definition, starting with the key words brought by each of us. The words on Education, Training, Self-Esteem, Rights: a series of words, a puzzle of words to start with in order to identify this area of work which I consider precious and present. Which is the word I can suggest? The word around which I can just spend my self, in a temporary and partial way, is the word Education. This word includes everything around, inside, over and under the Education of the young generations and of the Education of adults: Education never ends. There is no time limit, since to be in training means to be inside thoughts, your own thoughts process, the steps of your individual training. I would like to start with two titles of Hannah Arendt books, which I deem essential and which include the sense of Education on human rights, to go into the area of this theme and start to circumscribe it: a book is “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” [Rev. ed. New York: Viking, 1968, editor’s note) and “Il futuro alle spalle” [‘The future on your back’, a collection of six Arendt’s

Combating hate speech online

writings on Jewish culture, Il Mulino, 2006, editor’s note]. “Il futuro alle spalle” tells about the capacity we should have and that we can create only by Education, to look back in order to learn how to plan and how to plan ourself and look forward, starting from our own plans in which we must put our wishes and visions of the world. Even though it may appear strange, the wish, that is to learn how to touch under stand and see our desires is the result of a hard internal work. On the other hand, “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and the banality of evil: to put on Facebook, or on any other social network or media, to find words, hard epithet which could go around but do no hard: this type of evil is part of what Hanna Arendt defines ‘banality’. Finding on Facebook swear words or manners to define the others, even though you do not know him/her - because on Facebook you define persons “Finding on Facebook swear and things you neither know- is banal. words or manners to define the In such a situation there is a banality others, even though you do not of heavy evil, which comes from an unknow him/her - because on Faceknowing.

book you define persons and things you neither know- is banal”

What does this have to do with Education? A lot. Full stop and new paragraph.

What have we done in Italy for Education? In Italy, we have been the first in Europe to have built a patrimony, a very strong one in which hundreds of teachers, managers of the education department have worked. This patrimony was born and moved by the cultural and especially professional associations. For what concerns professional associations, the most important contribution was that of the MCE, [‘Movement of Educational Cooperation, www. mce-fimem.it, editor’s note]. Nowadays few know it with the exception of those who for generation reasons have had the opportunity to live and grow in it. Now it is important of catch the opportunity of remind and learn what the MCE has been. Teachers had the opportunity to work on voluntary service and on continuous and stable learning and to be able to move through all the italian reali-

Combating hate speech online

ties, through research method. In those years, persons like Danilo Dolci and Gianni Rodari were like guides and distributed a working method and an approach to Education which has been fundamental. Once a year, at Perugia, they held meetings in which there were the best of the Italian research: not the academic research, trapped in a plaster cast but the active research, the militant research, the one which started from the basis and which scattered a knowledge which opened new doors. Every two years the meetings were held in an European city since it was very important to divulgate the results of this research on an European level. Here, Celestin Freinet’s text between the First and Second world war was very im“Learning to look at others is portant for spreading Education and something we have totally lost Training through the new generainside the programmatic charts tions. An Education with its main aim and consequently inside the school to overthrow stereotypes against the programs” capacity of each individual to learn to look at others. Learnthe pro-

ing to look at others is something we have totally lost inside grammatic charts and consequently inside the school programs.

This patrimony was under the aegis of ‘La Nuova Italia’, a publishing house, which in those years took the initiative to give visibility to this research which was considered as political research, since it started from the basis. This means that knowledge had a certain value since it started from the basis and it was not a non-value like today : just try to imagine how today in our classrooms a test works out, how the national tests (so-called ‘invalsi’) work out and how much money there is around it. But what I would mean to show is how all this knowledge in Italy until the end of the 90’s ended: we are not talking about Jurassic themes but recent ones which have been forgotten because its death had been politically wanted. What has happened? Something has destroyed this doing attitude inside the knowledge: the cause, - it’ is banal to say- has been the economic element. It all started once the Educational Department started to say that it could have moved everything with the credit system. The credit, something regular for the

Combating hate speech online

new generations (‘ that exam is worth that number of credits’), this number, is the index of a pauperism of knowledge production. We are talking about this: a numerical and divided quantification of knowledge. This argument has to be preceded by another antecedent fact: we had learnt how to produce our knowledge in the streets, moving, walking, where words were free because tightly connected to personal experiences and stories.; we needed to go to Sicily to share our experience or to Emilia to study schools already studied by other European Countries. All this has been spoiled, like in all European countries, by monetizing Education and training. Now you find sheets for trainers’ fees, sheets for the credits of the students. This has been a political movement of a great impact which was, to some extent, wanted. The result is now in our hands: a huge gap, an extirpation of knowledge from the new generations. This means that, today, in the classrooms knowledge and the transmission of knowledge works in a different way. We do not have time, here, to deal with the despicable logistical conditions of our schools (with 30 pupils in our classroom for a teaching content policy). Herein, I would like to remark that we have put our hands politically on the production and mechanisms ok knowledge production. All the rest is a stream, just effects of the social and political choice mentioned before. To put the hands on the mechanisms of production and the basic research, so-called informal and non-formal, has meant for 20 years creating gaps as if there were some mental faculties extracted in an invisible way. Today we see the consequences and we easily say, with banality, that young people are ‘empty’. The things we find today on the web and on media are on one hand a result and on the other a necessity, that is what the new generations need today. This gap, this empty, comes and goes, it’s a double movement and we can read it only analyzing the way knowledge production has been touched. As a consequences we experience today bullism and hate speech like the one of the ‘nerd’ or ‘swot’ (the ‘hard worker’).’You are a swot’ today means that the knowledge forms and production of knowledge and the will to acquire knowledge is not a reward matter, but of demerit: that happens because you are nu-

Combating hate speech online

merically isolated and because thinking is made on mass movements - the most don’t know. But training, education and knowledge production is the emancipation moment par excellence. Another point is that Italy was the country in Europe which has produced more material on sex division and sexism in schoolbooks. We have produced a lot of precious material of which we have so little today. For 3 years, Italy has taken part to the Polite project [http://www.retepariopportunita.it/defaultdesktop. aspx?page=18], a pilot project to intervene on school books “this empty, comes and goes, it’s a double movement and we can read it only analyz- for discussing about stereoing the way knowledge production has types in a wider sense. Debeen touched” stroying stereotypes so the young generations can work on a way of deconstruct discriminations, is something that needs different tools, and one possible one is the internet

Within the Polite project, our school books have been examined for more than 3 years and specific requests have been done both by Italian research groups and European. Some examples: they have noticed the absence of pictures in the books which reproduce real images taken from reality, against strips which represent figures like a mother always dressed with a skirt, thus stressing stereotypes roles in society. The italian school books have been examined carefully from the point of view of the approach to world and to the others (images, contents, language) and the results have been positive: the research has been followed all over in Italy and the contacts with European countries who took part in the project started to be interesting. But the results haven’t had the wished changes: the publishing houses haven’t put pictures in school books and did not facilitate this changing process. Obviously, this created and incomplete contribution of the Polite project to the demolition of prejudices in the schoolbooks, with an inadequate knowledge of what has happened. This, at the expense of unconventional authors who hardly worked on the non formal and informal con-

Combating hate speech online

struction of knowledge. What I would like to underline is the fact that in a phase of Capitalism in decline, the same capitalism has put its hands on the different ways of the knowledge production. What we must ask ourselves and must leave us open questions is the relationship between the economical phase we are living now, in which there are not sufficient investments on knowledge, the development of people (not only on school) and training itself. We must ask ourselves how in a capitalistic phase, economy has been able to put its hands on that “we have destroyed the possibilities of seemingly invisible heritage, progressive advancements of education in that is productions and the general, and in the demolition of stereodifferent forms of production types in particular” of knowledge. The meaning of dealing with Hate Speech and the ways of contrasting them by training and education puzzle me about what we have already lost, without perceiving it: an irretrievable heritage that we have politically destroyed. Upstream, we have destroyed the possibilities of progressive advancements of education in general, and in the demolition of stereotypes in particular. Economy and politics have entered into the system before civil society noticed it, changing its terms and reaching this actual poorness: a tout court poorness that easily shows words such as ‘whore’, ‘faggot’ and ‘bitch’ on Facebook. Somebody has discovered it before us, when, as civil society, we were not absolutely aware, entering into the terms of production and training of knowledge, making it easy to loose the political capacity of producing knowledge. Against this, there is only one solution movement, and Hannah Arendt is still a symbolic teacher: the resistance. The work of resistance is an intellectual hard work being able to ‘keep fire on under the embers’ and that Hannah Arendt defined as ‘the virtue of passion’. Everytime I write ‘whore’ or ‘faggot’ on Facebook I show how empty I am, I reveal my lack of knowledge that show something more serious, that is that someone has taken away from me my capacity of thinking. Hannah Arendt had

Combating hate speech online

started it, had warned when she knew and analyzed this damned Leviathan when she took place at the processes [op cit], after the Second World war, when she scheduled the chronicle of the Trial at Jerusalem. Here she deeply saw this Leviathan and discovered how it was the Banality of Evil. She discovered it in an experimental dimension, in a lab, this mechanisms connected to politic and to the lack of thought production. Many of Nazi SS, in the this trial of which Hannah gives us a patient idealistic situation, used to think starting from Kant, the ‘Duty Ethics’ described by the philosopher together with his idea of ‘perpetual peace’.

the author

Anna Rita Merico define herself as a“Teacher, in his spare time. Cult follower of Women’s Studies. Contributor journalist on newspaper and specialized magazines. She is an experimenter of operative methodologies of investigation as a technique for practical work and theoretical thinking. Slalom racer with the needs of continuous escape from places of power (not only). A CV? ... Where to start? Two fundamental places: the University “Federico II” (Naples) , thesis in Political Doctrines on Carla Lonzi (Policy of subjectivity) and the MCE, not so well-known today, which represents a big slice of the history of Education in Italy. Sometimes, creative places that generate and stimulate: but or you do not need them or... they just disappear to create other forms of “resistance” of thought? “ CONTACTS: mericoannarita@gmail.com

Combating hate speech online

III. Hate Speech in LGBT activism

GianFranca Saracino

President AGEDO - Lecce

Agedo Lecce, founded on the 22nd May 2010, is a voluntary association made up of parents, relatives and friends of homosexual persons. It is affiliated and also has its own statute based on the one of the National A.Ge.D.O that has been established since 1992. The main aim of the association is to listen and offer support to families, to prevent youth problems by passing correct information and raise awareness in schools, institutions and amongst citizens on the themes of respect towards all people and all subjectivity, with the aim of promoting a culture of tolerance, relationship and value the differences. In order to reduce and break down prejudices, fears and stereotypes related to sexual orientation and gender identity, the Association is actively involved in the community by collaborating with the Centro Servizi Volontariato del Salento (Festival of Volunteers; Meetings / Debates in the squares and schools; Living Library2), and by organizing specific initiatives to teach respect towards all people. Among these initiatives: â&#x20AC;˘

The International Day Against Homophobia3

â&#x20AC;˘

The International Day against Transphobia (TDoR)4.

This scenario of initiatives and meetings, educational training for those who work in the community, about issues related to DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICES,

Combating hate speech online

FEARS and STEREOTYPES related to sexual orientation and gender identity, is a testimony5 of “how, in what way and why “the homophobic language” queer, lesbian, transgender “is used to exclude the non-hetero, creating attitudes of homophobic bullying. It continues, especially in the older generations and in some groups of young people, the idea that homosexual orientation is an illness or a behaviour that is contrary to the natural laws, which raged in anonymous way through sms, the Internet (cyber bullying) and, less than in the past, disapproval messages and insults on the walls. Mainly this happens because there is a lack of discussion about issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity: on TV the information is still rather superficial - even if stories and testimonies are more frequent then in the past - as for the Salento area, in the school curriculum it is still missing the emotional and sexual education. In addition, a homophobic attitude from the part of religious hierarchies, leaves a significant influence on families in a negative way. However, since, I have started the volunteer work as a repre“to prevent online bullying or not, is sentative of Agedo together through the constant work and active with my husband, I noticed a associations like ours, but also LGBT asprogress, albeit it is a slow imsociations, and places of education, formal provement, in the social conand non-formal” text, acceptance of the homosexual orientation and at the same time, a greater visibility of the young people and coming out more prevalent and earlier than in the past. The data collected from questionnaires suggest that in schools there is the perception that today only a significantly lower percentage of students call themselves “against” or “hostile” to the issue. Homosexuality in the majority opinion is no longer a taboo. Obviously we are still far from the reality where boys and girls are able to talk

Combating hate speech online

to teachers and parents of homosexuality in the same way in which they would talk about a football game. Our proposal to prevent online bullying or not, is through the constant work and active associations like ours, but also LGBT associations, and places of education, formal and non-formal,where it is necessary to promote diversity as healthy value and social capital.

THE AUTHOR

GianFranca Saracino at the present is the president of AGEDO Lecce - organization of parents of homosexual people that promotes LGBT values and rights in schools, through communication campaigns and public events. CONTACTS: http://agedolecce.blogspot.it agedolecce@gmail.com

Combating hate speech online

IV. E-stickers: viral communication against hate speech

ACTIVE SHEET #3

Following the logical process of the three workshops over the three days, we imagined a coherent path that, after analyzing the hate speech online, have them mapped (see “Map of Hate Speech online”) and identified preventive measures for activists (see “Speeches”: activity for activists, trainers and youth workers), we have created e-stickers that activists online will be free to use, also according to The Campaign “No Hate Speech Movement” of the Council of Europe (http://act4hre.coe.int/eng/No-hate-speech-movement/The-Campaign). In a manner consistent with the work done during the previous sessions, the young participants created easy to understand e-stickers, which can be used online with the link to SEYF’s website (www.seyf.eu) where there will be appropriate explanations and clarifications . E-stickers are already being disseminated across the platform created for the ‘Hate Speech Movement’. The number and types of e-stickers realized hark back to the ‘Map of Hate Speech online’ created.

Combating hate speech online

E-STICKERS

Combating hate speech online

Introduction

AFTERWORD

On. Sandro Gozi Vice-President of the Assembly of the Council of Europe

It is impossible to be actively involved in politics, without a proper knowledge of words. In particular, at the present age in which we are constantly stimulated to write, speak and interact. The stream of words that everyday flows in the world of politics and communications is enormous and huge and it expose itself to the risk of going out of control. The truth is that it is not anymore affordable for us to spread wrong messages. At any level. Once, the word of politics were few: they flew on the morning newspapers, on the frequencies of TV news and, at least, during some discussion. As a proof, we can recall some of the memorable slogan that has been kept impressed in our mind for many years. Nowadays, it is not so there anymore. Today it is not just about the number of word but, mainly, about the quality of words that are constantly used during every moment of our daily life. We can just think of the Internet: an incredible tool that is helpful in opening new ways and new hopes. We can just consider how a girl, with her smartphone, for sure has got much more information than a President of U.S.A. before the fall of the Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wall. The Internet is for sure an extraordinary opportunity but, in order to be functional, we should see that the information is the right one, because it is just enough to lose control for a few seconds and, then, the before mentioned opportunities becomes a risk. For the above mentioned reasons, I feel honoured to contribute to this project.

Introduction

The purpose of the Council of Europe to state as priority for the two-year period 2012-14 the fight to the hate speech online, is worthy of attention. For two main reasons: first of all, it deals with the issue at the proper level (European level), proving that the right approach that has to cross the national frontiers. Secondly, it is an important way to bring politics back to the focal point of the scene. Who else but the politics should take care of these issues? For too many years we looked at a general indifference: we always conseidered that these battle for rights were exclusive competence of civil society. In reality, only with joint efforts of policy and of all the civil society that stand for antidiscrimination (it is better at European level) it is possible to put up some results. The work of South Europe Youth Forum has been extraordinary, because it combines the complexity of a current issue with the freshness of the ones that try to find a solution in step with the times. It is possible to fight hate speech also with e-stickers if there is willpower and awareness on the high task. The current manual is rich of interesting material and good connections with the webdimension: it is a unique tool for spreading a positive message at national and European Level. Initiatives like these are important for pushing the Council of Europe to continue to work in this direction. Nothing is more important if we truly believe in a Europe where it is possible to stand for our rights and for the rights of all the European Citizens. Rights that make us different citizens but, in the meanwhile, citizens at the same level. With the hope to became different from what we never wanted to be, but equal for the same opportunities over a lifetime.

THE AUTHOR

Sandro Gozi is Italian deputy since 2006. He is currently President of the Italian Parliamentary Delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe, Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe and Co-Chairman of the Parliamentary Federalist to the United States of Europe. Since September 2013, also collaborator with no charge of the City of Rome in terms of funds and European projects. CONTACTS: www.sandrogozi.it

acknowledgements

This manual was edited by Sandro Salvatore Accogli and Vincenzo Lotito. We wish to thank the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe which, patiently, has allowed the realization of such an important event for sharing experiences and knowledge on an issue that daily affects all of us. We wish to thank all those who actively took part in the workshop and confirmed their helpfulness and accessibility, the project partners, as well as all the young participants who made this initiative possible. A special thanks goes to ‘The Best of Youth’ of SEYF network that have made possible the realization of the project: Giacomo Cazzato, Mara Verri, Lara Musarò, Anna Musarò, Giuseppina Calamiello, Riccardo Cesano, Nunzia Loconte, Samantha Primoceri, Vito Bruno, Mariangela De Fabrizio, Marija Borg Mifsud , Anna Lucia Aprile, Cristina De Tommaso, Paolo De Angelis, Simona Solla, Carla Onorati, Lucia Colamonaco, Ilaria Marchese, Fabrizio Accogli, Jorrit Jelle Rijpma. We also wanted to be able to sincerely thank the representatives of many local institutions and authorities who could and should, from our point of view, participate more actively and show further interest: their absence or lack of interest, in spite of what others demonstrated (NGOs, universities, activists, teachers) has represented to us a gap that we managed to bridge with our own efforts. We believe that in their absence there is fear of confrontation or perhaps misunderstanding (although the reasons are not clear) that such moments of high sharing of knowledge and skills are moments that lead to political visibility. We have proved the opposite, we are aware that there is a considerable amount of work to be done: on these basis lies the most ambitious and valuable follow-up that we can imagine.

Contacts:

SEYF - South Europe Youth Forum www.seyf.eu info@seyf.eu facebook.com/seyf.lecce @seyf_lecce

The editors Sandro Accogli: expert in Human Rights and Sustainable Development. He is one of the founding members of SEYF since 2010. His interests range from communication, culture and participation and democratic process.

sandro.accogli@seyf.eu

Vincenzo Lotito: expert in Outdoor Education and project managing. He is one of the founding members of SEYF since 2010. His interests range from art, intercultural issues and artistic direction of cultural events. vincenzo.lotito@seyf.eu

HATE SPEECH on-line MANUAL

edited bya cura di: Sandro Salvatore Accogli, Vincenzo Lotito

The manual comes from the development of the project Social Rightwork - ‘Hate Speech online - capacity building workshop’ is a workshop for stakeholders and activists based on the priority 2012-14 of the Council of Europe “young people defending human rights online, namely Internet-based projects against hate speech”. The workshop created solutions for mapping, preventing and combating hate speech online among young people. The main aim of the present manual is to provide young people, NGOs and stakeholders with new information, tools and skills on the various and new universe of online discrimination.

SEYF - South Europe Youth Forum is an international partners’ network based in South Italy. SEYF works for the social inclusion of young people in disadvantage, in order to let them reach more opportunities in the competitive world of work. SEYF organizes youth exchanges, seminars, fosters EVS and training course for an easier access of young people to youth initiatives. SEYF is a structured online platform (www.seyf.eu) where every organization can have its own space, to sponsor its activities, it goals and can share partners, aims and initiatives.

ISBN 978-88-908980-5-1