The concept of hate speech lacks a unanimous consensus with regard to its fundamental elements. Scholars emphasize different aspects of the phenomenon, making it difficult to establish an effective and widely applicable definition. As a result, empirical studies on hate speech often have limited applicability and validity, making it challenging to generalize findings across diverse contexts.
Some concepts are too narrow such that they do not fit across different contexts, while others are so broad that they can hardly be differentiated from related phenomena. The United Nations framework characterizes hate speech as “any form of communication, whether oral, written, or behavioral, that employs prejudiced or discriminatory language towards an individual or group based on attributes such as religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender, or other identity factors.”
This definition encompasses all forms of expression that are either “discriminatory” (biased, bigoted, or intolerant) or “pejorative” (prejudiced, contemptuous, or demeaning) toward an individual or group. While other scholars also adopt this definition, its broad scope necessitates distinguishing hate speech from related concepts. Notably, terms like “prejudiced” and “discriminatory” remain open to interpretation, making the definition less precise. Furthermore, the assumption that hate speech targets individuals and groups equally warrants further scrutiny.
Individuals become targets of hate speech solely because of their association with a target group. Hate speech does not necessarily involve direct defamation or personal targeting; rather, it is often rooted in the demonization of groups through overgeneralizations and collective stereotyping.
Conceptual Framework for Hate Speech
A nuanced understanding of hate speech is needed—one that is both suitable for the Indian and South Asian context and aligned with broader interpretations of the phenomenon without losing its core meaning.
Hate Speech can be defined as an “oral or written expression that deliberately attacks a target group based on (ascribed) religion, ethnicity, descent, gender and other identity factors in a threatening, abusive, harmful and devaluing or dehumanizing way while promoting hostility and contempt toward the target group among an in-group.“
This redefined conceptualization of hate speech offers three key advantages. First, it builds on Political scientist Gary Goertz’s “three-level” concept framework, ensuring clear intention and extension, which leads to a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. Second, it is grounded in established communication and emotion theories, providing a strong theoretical foundation. Third, this framework is specifically tailored to the Indian and South Asian context, addressing gaps in existing approaches that predominantly reflect a Western liberal democratic perspective.
The concept of hate speech is composed of two terms: hate and speech. Speech, a fundamental form of communication, generally refers to the expression of thoughts, emotions, or ideas through spoken words or written language.
The theory of the communication triangle consists of three key elements: the speaker (or sender), the message, and the recipient. The speaker conveys a message, which carries the content or information, and the recipient interprets it upon reception. In language theory, speech acts are understood as actions where words serve a specific function or have an impact. The core idea is that communication elicits a response or change in the world. A speech act goes beyond the mere utterance of words and encompasses the intention behind the speech.
The Psychology of Hate
Hate or hatred is a relatively stable, long-lasting emotion characterized by hate or blameworthiness, overgeneralization, and collectivization (where individuals are categorized into in-groups and out-groups). “Othering” is a social psychological concept that involves perceiving and treating individuals or groups as fundamentally different from and often inferior to one’s own in-group, leading to the creation of dichotomies between “us” and “them.” It often involves the reinforcement of stereotypes, discrimination, and the exclusion of those perceived as outsiders.
Compared to other emotions, hate does not fluctuate rapidly but remains persistent, developing and intensifying over time. American psychologist and psychometrician Robert J.Sternberg identifies three components of hatred, which can occur in different combinations and forms: disgust and revulsion, anger or fear, and devaluation and belittlement through contempt. Hatred has an inherent purposefulness that goes beyond the intentionality—the outward direction of a mental state—of reflex emotions such as fear or anger.
Most scholars define hate speech as a behavior or an action. More specifically, most scholars agree to understand hate speech as public oral or written expression. Less often, hate speech is classified as “a poisonous discourse.” Hate speech “is expressive, and it can often be said to ‘send a message,’ but it is not [inherently] communicative or dialogical.” Hate speech “can occur with different linguistic styles, even in subtle forms or when humor is used.” No matter the linguistic style, hate speech is “the willful denigration of others.”
Scholars agree that “effects in terms of harmfulness” are a necessary feature of hate speech. Consequently, hate speech is best characterized by the impact of the message. Following the Peacetech Lab’s Training Manual on Countering Hate Speech Strategies and Best Practices, this approach prioritizes impact rather than the intent of the speech, as measuring the true intent of a speaker is not feasible with our methodological approach.
To classify hate speech, the message must consist of derogatory, “inflaming and deleterious words” or “harmful or offensive content targeting […] groups”. Hate speech “attacks or diminishes” and uses dehumanizing language. Such messaging “incites violence or hate against groups, based on specific characteristics such as physical appearance, religion, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or other.” The targets of hate speech are most likely minorities or minority members in a broad sense. Targets of hate speech are “attacked because of what [they are] regarded to be—rather than for who [they are].” Hate speech often manifests through sweeping judgments that ascribe negative traits or blame an entire group based on perceived shared characteristics, rather than individual actions.
The categories of “target” and “recipient” are not necessarily the same in hate speech. Hate speech is designed to systematically incite hatred towards minorities “based on race, religion, ethnicity and violence between different communities” and inflame “religious and ethnic passion.” As per this understanding, hate speech appeals to the ingroup with the aim to “increase an individual’s outgroup prejudice” or to “incite violence.” It reinforces group boundaries, intensifies polarization, and perpetuates stereotypes, making it a powerful driver of prejudice and exclusion. In this case, the speaker and recipient or audience share a group identity, thus they are part of the in-group. Furthermore, hate speech can also be used as a threat or warning for out-group members.
Hate speech encompasses a family of related concepts, meaning it is a broad category that includes various interrelated phenomena with nuanced distinctions. Dangerous speech and fear speech can be understood as subtypes of hate speech. Dangerous speech primarily focuses on justifying and promoting violence, while fear speech seeks to instill fear—mainly among the in-group—regarding a specific (minority) community. These subtypes are not treated as entirely distinct concepts, as hate speech, dangerous speech, and fear speech are empirically interconnected and frequently overlap.
The theoretical elements of hostile and contemptuous content, involvement of a target group, and impact apply equally to both subtypes. Hate speech might involve calls to violence—which would refer to the subtype of dangerous speech (or additional emotions, in which case classified as fear speech)—but such characteristics are not necessary parts of hate speech.
Hate Speech in the Indian and South Asian Context
Illegality does not have to be a requirement of hate speech. Hate speech can but does not necessarily have to be illegal to be classified as such. In India, issues of hate speech and disinformation remain largely unaddressed. Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression but also provides for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds of public order, decency, and morality.
Hate speech that disturbs communal harmony and creates discord among people is prohibited. While there are provisions in India that prohibit forms of hate speech, nowhere is hate speech defined in any law. As a result, there are instances where governments have used vague definitions of hate speech to create laws against free expression to punish or silence journalists and critics.
Three key attributes are sufficient for categorizing an expression as hate speech: hostile and contemptuous content, the presence of a target group, and the public nature and impact of the message. These three attributes are also necessary to distinguish hate speech from other types of expressions or connected concepts such as Islamophobia, racism, or defamation.
Those who engage in hate speech may also engage in other types of speech that meet these connected criteria. Specific hate speech messages might also fall under one or several of these concepts. However, these other types of expression are not an inherent part of hate speech. In the Indian context, we see various forms of misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories used to portray Muslims as a threat (Islamophobia) during hate speech events.
Existing approaches to hate speech often adopt a Western liberal democratic perspective, such as freedom of expression, human dignity, individual rights, equality, and the rule of law. Western democracies adopt a balancing act between protecting freedom of expression and curbing harmful speech. Courts often weigh the societal harm of hate speech against the importance of protecting speech. Many societies in the Global South prioritize community cohesion, collective identities, and religious or cultural values over individual rights.
In many South Asian countries, group identities are integral to societal structures. Hate speech laws often target speech that disrupts communal harmony rather than individual dignity. As a result, freedom of expression is subordinated to concerns such as public order, national security, or religious sanctity. This does not constitute a rejection of the liberal democratic perspective but rather an acknowledgment that, despite its value, its applicability is context-dependent and may be limited in certain settings.
In the Indian or South Asian context, a useful definition of hate speech must encompass a broad range of incidents, including direct calls or forms of encouragement, support or justification for violence, calls for social and economic boycott, calls to exclude minority or vulnerable communities from state institutions, or the propagation of various conspiracy theories. A comprehensive and context-specific conceptualization of hate speech enables the accurate classification of statements, serving as a crucial first step in understanding the prevalence and nature of hate speech.