Pushing Back, Through Media and Civil Society

How a society responds to hate spin depends on not only its laws, but also its social norms—in particular, whether people consider bigotry to be socially acceptable or something to fight against, how comfortable they are with ideas and beliefs that are different, and whether their sense of national belonging is based on inclusive democratic values or an exclusive cultural identity. This chapter examines the role of non-state actors in shaping societies’ responses to hate spin. These players—secular and religious civil society groups, news organizations, and social media platforms, for example—are essential parts of any effort to build democracies that are respectful of religious differences. But, like state policy, media and civil society organizations are also often part of the problem, facilitating, encouraging, or even generating hate spin.

United States: Exceptional Freedoms, Fabricated Fears

The United States has exceptionally strong Constitutional protections for free speech, but also for religious freedom. This chapter considers how this unique legal framework affects hate spin in the country. It finds that although hate speech can be expressed with a high degree of impunity, strong anti-discrimination laws limit the harms caused by such speech. Hate spin can, nonetheless, succeed in fostering fear and cultivating prejudice against minorities. The chapter examines how a network of anti-Muslim activists have used hate spin to campaign against mosque building, to oppose multi-cultural textbooks, and to introduce legislation protecting states from the fabricated threat of encroaching Muslim law. Beyond their stated goals, which may be frustrated by courts, these campaigns often have the symbolic purpose of spreading Islamophobia.

Indonesia: Democracy Tested amid Rising Intolerance

This chapter examines rising religious intolerance in Indonesia, which threatens its reputation for moderatism and secularism. A relatively young democracy, Indonesia’s newly opened political terrain has allowed intolerant groups to emerge. Rather than a tightly coordinated Islamist conspiracy, the country has an ecosystem of organizations and interest groups—political parties, militant gangs, government agencies, and the main Muslim clerical body—whose self-serving actions cultivate an environment that is conducive to hate. Christians in some locations have been unable to build churches because of these hate campaigns. There has also been serious violence against the Ahmadiyah sect and the Shia Muslim minority. The country’s blasphemy law is especially problematic, enabling the most intolerant segments of the majority community to oppress religious minorities.

India: Narendra Modi and the Harnessing of Hate

This case study of India analyzes the use of hate spin in Narendra Modi’s triumphant 2014 election campaign. The Sangh Parivar network of Hindu nationalists targeted the Muslim minority through classic hate speech in order to mobilize the far right and unite the caste-riven Hindu majority behind the Brahmin-dominated BJP. The Hindu right also conducted a systematic campaign to manufacture extreme offendedness against historical writing perceived as defaming their religion. India’s legal system has been unable to contain hate spin. Laws against incitement are poorly enforced, offering little protection for vulnerable groups facing violence. At the same time, laws intended to preserve harmony by regulating insult have created a de facto right to be offended, which is used by hate spin agents to demand censorship of legitimate speech.

God, Google, and the Globalization of Offendedness

This chapter focuses on cross-border cases of politicized indignation. Frictions between societies with different standards of propriety and different religious sensibilities are inevitable. Political entrepreneurs have capitalized on these to generate hate spin. Three prominent cases are examined: Salman Rushdie’s award-winning novel, The Satanic Verses, the Prophet Muhammad cartoons published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, and the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video. Each case shows that, behind the semblance of spontaneous combustion, hate spin agents were instigating outrage for identifiable political motives. The internet adds a new dimension to transborder hate spin, multiplying the opportunities for offense-taking. It has also introduced a new type of actor in the form of global internet intermediaries such as Google.

By What Rules? Human Rights and Religious Authority

Constitutional and legal frameworks influence the practice of hate spin. This chapter explains the international human rights approach, which draws the line of legal permissibility at incitement to discrimination and violence. It also discusses the American First Amendment tradition, which is significantly more tolerant of extreme speech in public discourse. At the other extreme are states that have wide latitude to police offence and insult. Islamic nations have attempted to export their domestic approaches into international law through the idea of “defamation of religion”. This debate raises the larger question of how constitutions should accommodate religious rationales for law. Drawing insights from the sociology of religion and comparative political science, this chapter argues that a plural and tolerant democracy does not require religion to be forced out of the public sphere, but must give primacy to the rule of law.

Hate Spin as Politics by Other Means

This chapter introduces the original concept of “hate spin,” defined as manufactured vilification or indignation, used as a political strategy that exploits group identities to mobilize supporters and coerce opponents. It explains why the more familiar phenomenon of hate speech should not be conflated with offense-taking. It summarizes the book’s main arguments and provides an overview of relevant literature from communication studies, legal studies, and political science. The concept of hate spin draws mainly from political sociology’s studies of contentious politics. Gamson’s concept of “injustice frames,” for example, has strong resonance with the hate spin strategy of politicizing indignation.

Assertive Pluralism for a World of Irreducible Diversity

Drawing from the preceding case studies, the concluding chapter finds hate spin to be a sophisticated form of contention that is strategic, versatile and networked. These characteristics make hate spin difficult for the law to deal with. Laws against offense are fundamentally flawed because they fail to take into account the subjectivity of offense, which makes such laws prone to abuse by hate spin agents. Prohibition of incitement is necessary but usually insufficient, because hate propaganda can be designed in ways to evade the law. Rather than merely addressing speech, democracies should institute strong antidiscrimination laws. Hate spin causes the most damage in contexts where equality for minorities is not guaranteed. A multicultural, equality-protecting constitutional order is the only viable way to organize a society that is internally diverse.