Terrorist-Extremist Speech and Hate Speech: Understanding the Similarities and Differences

Gelber, Katharine

doi:10.1007/s10677-019-10013-x

Published: 22 June 2019

Terrorist-Extremist Speech and Hate Speech: Understanding the Similarities and Differences

Katharine Gelber¹

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice volume 22, pages 607–622 (2019)Cite this article

972 Accesses
3 Citations
Metrics details

Abstract

The terms ‘hate’ and ‘hatred’ are increasingly used to describe the rationale of a kind of anti-Western terrorist-extremist speech. This discursively links this kind of terrorist-extremist speech with the well-known concept of ‘hate speech’, a link that suggests the two phenomena are more alike than they are unlike. In this article I interrogate the similarities and differences between anti-Western terrorist-extremist speech and hate speech as they manifest in Western liberal democratic states along two axes: to whom the speech is addressed, and how harm is occasioned. Relying on a combination of philosophical conceptions and public policy empirics, I demonstrate that there are significant differences between the two types of speech, especially in their mechanisms of harm. The implications of this analysis are that these differences should be better understood in order to respond appropriately to these two distinct types of harmful speech.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

On a related point I do not, in principle, support the use of the term ‘hate’ to categorise ‘hate speech’. It implies that any expression of antipathy or dislike towards any target is substantively the core of the phenomenon. By contrast, ‘hate speech’ is better understood as a discursive act of harm in the sense of an act of exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination targeted at those able to be identified as systemically vulnerable to discrimination within the context in which the speech occurs (Gelber 2019).
‘Discrimination’ is defined as unjustified, less favourable treatment based on an irrelevant and arbitrary characteristic (Rees et al. 2008: 70). Marginalisation is to be understood as systemic susceptibility to such discrimination.
Citing the well-known Brandenburg test (Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).
Criminal Code (Cth), s11.4; Serious Crime Act 2007 (UK), ss 44–46.
For example, three men who urged Muslims to wage war against non-believers were convicted in the UK for inciting terrorism (BBC News 2007).
Obtained from the Jihadi Document Repository at the University of Oslo, accessed with permission.
See also international efforts led by the United Nations and the Council of Europe (Walker 2017: 531).
Terrorism Act 2006 (UK), 1(1).
Criminal Code (Cth), s 80.2C.
Criminal Code (Cth), s 80.2(1).
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 80.2A(1), 80.2B(1).
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 80.2A(2), 80.2B(2).
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 102.1, 102.4.
It is to be noted that this conception of hate speech is quite narrow, relying as it does on harm to specified groups. This choice is deliberate, as this article is concerned to delineate differences between types of speech that are otherwise treated as similar, but ought not to be. I recognise not all readers will agree with the narrow conception I utilise here.
This renders an added complexity to regulating such speech if and when the punishment is directed at the audience (those who circulate or view the material), not at the speaker who is the object of regulation in other speech-regulating contexts (Chen 2017: 389).
eg In New South Wales it is ‘unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons’ on a specified ground (Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 20C, 38S, 49ZT, 49ZXB). This model has been followed, with some variations, in Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and South Australia (Gelber and McNamara 2015b: 489–90).
I note this understanding of hate speech is not uniformly held, but it is the position adopted in this argument and I have defended this position in Gelber (2019).
Redish and Fisher describe it as a third-party ‘threat’ (2017: 578).
Terrorism Act 2000, s1 (UK).
Criminal Code (Cth), s 100.1
Naik v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2825 (cited in Brown 2017: 52).
Naik v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2825.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf.
https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/pages/home.aspx.

References

Aly A, Balnaves M (2007) They want us to be afraid: developing metrics of the fear of terrorism. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations 6(6):113–122
Google Scholar
Aly A, Green L (2010) Fear, anxiety and the state of terror. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 33:268–281
Google Scholar
Anderson K (2013) Diagnosing discrimination: stress from perceived racism and the mental and physical health effects. Sociol Inq 83(1):55–81
Google Scholar
Attorney-General’s Department (2015) Preventing violent extremism and radicalisation in Australia. Available at: https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/preventing-violent-extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.pdf (accessed 24 September 2018)
Australian Government (2017) Update on Australian Government measures to counter violent extremism: a quick guide. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/CounterViolentExtremism (accessed 24 September 2018)
Australian Government (2018a) Fact sheet – understanding the radicalisation process. Available at: https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/understanding-the-radicalisation-process.pdf (accessed 11 September 2018)
Australian Government (2018b) Fact sheet – what is radicalisation?. Available at: https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/what-is-radicalisation.pdf (accessed 11 September 2018)
Australian Government (2018c) Living safe together: about us. Available at: https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/aboutus/pages/home.aspx (accessed 11 September 2018)
Barendt E (2005) Freedom of speech, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
BBC News (2007) Three Jailed for Inciting Terror. BBC News, 5 July. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6273732.stm (accessed 19 November 2018)
Bin Ladin U (2004) Speech. Al Jazeera, 1 November. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html (accessed 16 January 2019)
Bleich E (2018) Historical institutionalism and judicial decision making: ideas, institutions, and actors in French high court hate speech rulings. World Polit 70(1):53–85
Google Scholar
Braithwaite A (2013) The logic of public fear in terrorism and counter-terrorism. J Police Crim Psychol 28(2):95–101
Google Scholar
Brown G (2014) Brown: anti-terror speech. BBC News, 14 November. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7094620.stm (accessed 11 September 2018)
Brown A (2015) Hate Speech Law. Routledge, London
Google Scholar
Brown A (2017) The politics behind the introduction of stirring up religious hatred offences in England and Wales. Politics, Religion and Ideology 18(1):42–72
Google Scholar
Busby M (2018) UK has not ‘woken up’ to far-right threat, says ex-counter-terror chief. The Guardian, 18 august. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/18/former-counter-terrorism-chief-says-uk-has-not-woken-up-to-far-right-threat (accessed 11 September 2018)
Chen A (2017) Free speech and the confluence of National Security and internet Exceptionalism. Fordham Law Review 86(2):379–399
Google Scholar
Cherney A, Sweid R, Grossman M, Derbas A, Dunn K, Jones C, Hartley J, Barton G (2018) Local service provision to counter violent extremism: perspectives, capabilities and challenges arising from an Australian service mapping project. Behavioural Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 10(3):187–206
Google Scholar
Clarke C (2005) Tackling terrorism: Behaviours unacceptable in the UK. Press Release, 24 august. Available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/aug/07uk-terr-behaviour.htm (accessed 11 September 2018)
Cohen-Almagor R (2017) The role of internet intermediaries in tackling terrorism online. Fordham Law Review 86(2):425–453
Google Scholar
Conway M (2006) Terrorism and the internet: new media – new threat? Parliam Aff 59(2):283–298
Google Scholar
Dalgaard-Nielsen A (2010) Violent radicalization in Europe: what we know and what we do not know. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 33(9):797–814
Google Scholar
Dearden L (2017) London Attack Linked to Hate Preacher Anjem Choudary’s Extremist Network. Independent, 6 June. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-attack-bridge-borough-isis-perpetrators-khuram-butt-links-anjem-choudary-documentary-jihadis-a7776101.html (accessed 11 September 2018)
Di Filippo M (2014) The definition(s) of terrorism in international law. In: Saul B (ed) Research handbook on international law and terrorism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–19
Google Scholar
Dodd V (2016) Anjem Choudary: a hate preacher who spread terror in UK and Europe. The Guardian, 17 August. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/16/anjem-choudary-hate-preacher-spread-terror-uk-europe (accessed 11 September 2018)
Gelber K (2002) Speaking Back: the free speech versus hate speech debate. John Benjamins Ltd, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
Gelber K (2009) The false analogy between vilification and sedition. Melbourne University Law Review 33(1):270–291
Google Scholar
Gelber K (2016) Free speech after 9/11. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Gelber K (2019) Differentiating hate speech: a systemic discrimination approach. Crit , Rev Int Soc Pol Phil online first:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1576006
Gelber K, McNamara L (2015a) The effects of civil hate speech Laws: lessons from Australia. Law Soc Rev 49(3):631–664
Google Scholar
Gelber K, McNamara L (2015b) Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities 22(1–3):324–341
Google Scholar
Han D (2017) Terrorist advocacy and exceptional circumstances. Fordham Law Review 86(2):487–507
Google Scholar
Heath-Kelly C (2013) Counter-terrorism and the counterfactual: producing the ‘radicalisation’ discourse and the UK PREVENT strategy. Br J Polit Int Rel 15:394–415
Google Scholar
Langton R (1990) Whose right? Ronald Dworkin, women and pornographers. Philos Public Aff 19:311–359
Google Scholar
Langton R (1993) Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philos Public Aff 22(4):293–330
Google Scholar
Langton R (2012) Beyond belief: pragmatics in hate speech and pornography. In: Maitra I, McGowan MK (eds) Speech and harm: controversies over free speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 72–93
Google Scholar
Leibowitz Z (2017) Terror on your timeline: criminalizing terrorist incitement on social media through doctrinal shift. Fordham Law Review 86(2):795–824
Google Scholar
Maitra I (2009) Silencing speech. Can J Philos 39:309–338
Google Scholar
Maitra I, McGowan MK (2007) The limits of free speech: pornography and the question of coverage. Legal Theory 13(1):41–68
Google Scholar
Maitra I, McGowan MK (2012) Introduction and overview. In: Maitra I, McGowan MK (eds) Speech and harm: controversies over free speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–23
Google Scholar
Matsuda M (1993) Public response to racist speech: considering the Victim’s story. In: Matsuda M, Lawrence C, Delgado R, Crenshaw K (eds) Words that wound: critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment. Westview Press, Boulder, Co, pp 17–52
Google Scholar
Matsuda M, Lawrence C, Delgado R, eds CK (1993) Words that wound: critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment. Westview Press, Boulder, Co
Google Scholar
McGowan MK (2003) Conversational Exercitives and the force of pornography. Philos Public Aff 31:155–189
Google Scholar
McGowan MK (2005) On pornography: MacKinnon, speech acts and ‘false’ construction. Hypatia 20:22–49
Google Scholar
Meyer IH (2003) Prejudice, social stress and mental health in lesbian, gay and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull 129(5):674–697
Google Scholar
Mueller J, Stewart M (2012) The terrorism delusion: America’s overwrought response to September 11. Int Secur 37(1):81–110
Google Scholar
Nellis A (2009) Fear of terrorism. In: Borgeson K, Valeri R (eds) Terrorism in America. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, pp 117–144
Google Scholar
Nellis AM, Savage J (2012) Does watching the news affect fear of terrorism? The importance of media exposure on terrorism fear. Crime Delinq 58(5):748–768
Google Scholar
Olding R (2016) Hardline Islamic preachers forced out of Sydney mosques. Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/hardline-islamic-preachers-forced-out-of-sydney-mosques-20160217-gmwk57.html (accessed 11 September 2018)
O’Neill N, Rice S, Douglas R (2004) Retreat from injustice: human rights law in Australia, 2^nd edn. Federation Press, Sydney
Google Scholar
Parekh B (2012) Is there a case for banning hate speech? In: Herz M, Molnar P (eds) The content and context of hate speech: rethinking regulation and responses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–56
Google Scholar
Posner E (2015) ISIS gives us no choice but to consider limits on speech. Slate, 15 December. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/12/isis_s_online_radicalization_efforts_present_an_unprecedented_danger.html (accessed 24 September 2018)
Rees N, Lindsay K, Rice S (2008) Australian anti-discrimination law: text, cases and materials. Federation Press, Sydney
Google Scholar
Redish M, Fisher M (2017) Terrorizing advocacy and the first amendment: free expression and the fallacy of mutual exclusivity. Fordham Law Review 86(2):566–590
Google Scholar
Richards A (2011) The problem with ‘radicalization: the remit of ‘prevent’ and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK. Int Aff 87(1):143–152
Google Scholar
Roy, Aleanor Ainge 2019 “No right to Livestream murder”: Ardern leads push against online terror content. The Guardian, 24 April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/24/christchurch-call-ardern-leads-push-against-online-terror-content (accessed 26 April 2019)
Rubinsztein-Dunlop S (2016) Junaid Thorne: alleged terror cell leader believes it was his Destiny to become counter-terrorism target’. ABC News, 8 November Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/junaid-thorne-denies-being-terror-cell-leader/8002588 (accessed 11 September 2018)
Rumney P (2003) The British experience of racist hate speech regulation: a lesson for first amendment absolutists? Common Law World Review 32:117–160
Google Scholar
Schwenkenbecher A (2012) Terrorism: a philosophical inquiry. Palgrave, Houndmills
Google Scholar
Shepherd A (2017) Extremism, free speech and the rule of law: evaluating the compliance of legislation restricting extremist expressions with article 19 ICCPR. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 33(85):62–83
Google Scholar
Sunstein C (1995) Democracy and the problem of free speech. In: Democracy and the problem of free speech, 2^nd edn. Free Press, New York
Google Scholar
Sunstein C (2015) Islamic State’s challenge to free speech. Bloomberg, 24 November. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-23/islamic-state-s-challenge-to-free-speech (accessed 24 September 2018)
Tiffen R, Gittins R (2004) How Australian compares. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Tsesis A (2017b) Terrorist incitement on the internet. Fordham Law Review 86(2):367–377
Tsesis A (2017b) Terrorist incitement on the internet. Fordham Law Review 86(2):367–377
Google Scholar
UK Government (2011) Prevent Strategy. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf (accessed 11 September 2018)
UK Government (2015a) Revised Prevent Duty Guidance. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/3799_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf (accessed 11 September 2018)
UK Government (2015b) Counter-extremism strategy. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470094/51859_Cm9148_PRINT.PDF (accessed 11 September 2018)
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (2012) Mental Health Impacts of Racial Discrimination in Victorian Aboriginal Communities: Experiences of Racism Survey – A Summary. VHPF, Carlton
Google Scholar
Vijleveld E, Scheepers D, Ellemers N (2012) The cortisol response to anticipated intergroup interactions predicts self-reported prejudice. PLoS One 7(3):e33671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033681
Article Google Scholar
Waldron J (2012) The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Walker C (2017) The war of words with terrorism: an assessment of three approaches to pursue and prevent. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 22(3):523–551
Google Scholar
Williams P (1991) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge. Harvard University Press

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Mary Kate McGowan, Karen Hussey, Alex Brown, Matteo Bonotti, Paul Billingham and the two anonymous referees for very helpful discussions and suggestions on the ideas in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Queensland, QLD, St Lucia, 4072, Australia
Katharine Gelber

Authors

Katharine Gelber
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine Gelber.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gelber, K. Terrorist-Extremist Speech and Hate Speech: Understanding the Similarities and Differences. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 22, 607–622 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10013-x

Download citation

Published: 22 June 2019
Issue Date: June 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10013-x

Keywords

Terrorism
Extremism
Hate speech
Speech regulation
Countering violent extremism