The story of hate speech has no end. But what does the practice of the Complaints Commission of the Council of Media Ethics (CMEM) reveal?
Attempts to prevent hate speech in the media and on social networks have yet to bear fruit.
Hate speech does not decrease or disappear from the media – press broadcasting, portals, and social networks.
Author: Mirche Adamchevski
What is the situation in our country?
Macedonia’s situation is not significantly different from that of the region. Hate speech has been the subject of several studies and analyses in recent years. From various organizations and the Helsinki Committee, as well as the Macedonian Institute for Media, the Institute for Communication Studies, Metamorphosis… They clearly identify situations that involve hate speech. The reasons why the struggle with that speech has not been successful have been identified. The weaknesses of the system are pointed out, first of all, to the law enforcement authorities, courts, prosecutor’s offices, and other institutions, as well as to the media institutions required by law to take care of the media and their work.
The CMEM Complaints Commission has made a small number of decisions in which hate speech and discrimination on any basis have been detected. The majority are for online media. Interestingly, data for a period showed that the number of hate speech complaints was declining. From 2014 to 2017, in three years, we made 49 decisions on hate speech or discrimination. In 2018 there are 9 decisions, in 2019 – 12, in 2020 – six, in 2021 and in 2022 after four decisions. Does this mean that hate speech is becoming less common in Macedonia? No. This was confirmed last year.
According to the Ethics Council statistics for 2023, immediately after the number of decisions, which refer to inaccurate or false reporting or a violation of Article 1 of the Journalist Code and the Guidelines for Ethical Reporting of the online media, a total of 31, there were 15 decisions on hate speech and discrimination. This confirms that hate speech is not being reduced; rather, it is being moved from media to social networks, specifically to social media comments, where some media outlets post their content.
In our country, very few media outlets allow commenting on their pages. They are most likely afraid of unexpected comments or do not have administrators or monitors who can control what and how comments are posted. If it is known that even serious portals have two to three employees, some with slightly more, it suggests that they are not prepared to take on the challenge of editing comments to remove hate speech.
What is the reason for the CMEM Complaints Commission’s increased number of hate speech decisions over the last year? Above all, on the activity of non-governmental organizations, which began to follow media content posts on social networks more frequently. Their complaints are primarily about hate speech, incitement to violence, discrimination and stigmatization, and attacks on LGBT people or other members of marginalized groups, particularly on social media.
Calls to define rules and obligations for online media and social networks from relevant organizations or institutions in Europe are not coincidental. But it is one thing to look for rules, and it is quite another to implement them in practice. There is a significant risk of increasing state intervention in ethical matters. Danger of self-censorship, even censorship. The experience of the CMEM Complaints Commission shows that the LGBT community is “crucified” between hate speech and freedom of expression. This is especially true when you hear the complainants’ and the media’s perspectives on the complaints we receive.
Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, relating to Freedom of Expression, is very clearly defined. But there is no single definition of hate speech.
Hate speech is typically defined as any form of expression that promotes discrimination, hostility, or violence against an individual or group based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, language, or political affiliation. Speech that can take many forms, including abusive insults, offensive jokes, threats, stereotypes, or… It can grow into spreading fear, inciting violence, and inciting discrimination and hostility.
The CMEM Complaints Commission treats hate speech through the Code of Journalists of Macedonia and the Guidelines for Ethical Reporting of Online Media. According to Article 10 of the Code of Journalists of Macedonia, journalists must not intentionally create or process information that threatens human rights or freedoms, engage in hate speech, or incite violence or discrimination based on any grounds (national, religious, racial, gender, social, linguistic, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.).
The Guidelines’ provisions are consistent with the Code; in Article 10, item 10.4 states: “Online media are responsible for the regular review and rapid removal of user comments published under journalistic content on websites or social networks that contain hate speech and have the potential to cause harmful consequences in society.”
There is also a special Article 20 in the Guidelines, which refers to the responsibility of published comments from readers. The online media is also responsible for the content of the comments left on journalistic content published in the media, as well as those posted on his social media profile. According to the article, the online media will remove all comments containing calls for violence or other crimes, hate speech, discrimination, threats, and other forms of endangering the rights and safety of individuals, groups, and institutions, whether directly or indirectly related to the text or the topic it addresses.