Dangerous Speech along the Path to Mass Violence

Inflammatory public speech rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence, suggesting that it is a precursor or even a prerequisite for violence, which makes sense: groups of killers do not form spontaneously. In most cases, a few influential speakers gradually incite a group to violence. Violence may be prevented, then, by interfering with this process in any of several ways: inhibiting the speech, limiting its dissemination, undermining the credibility of the speaker, or ‘inoculating’ the audience against the speech so that it is less influential, or dangerous.

Such efforts must not infringe upon freedom of speech, however, since that is a fundamental right and since free speech itself may help to prevent violence. Before acting to limit ‘dangerous speech’ – speech that catalyzes violence – we must have a means to distinguish it from other speech, even that which is controversial or repugnant.

WPI Senior Fellow Susan Benesch has developed an analytical framework for making the distinction, as part of her Dangerous Speech Project, based at WPI, where she is Senior Fellow. The framework is based on the insight that the dangerousness of a particular speech act, in the context in which it is made or disseminated, depends on five variables: the speaker, the audience, the speech itself, the historical and social context, and the means of dissemination. For example, some speakers are more influential than others, and some audiences are especially vulnerable.

Benesch has been working since 2010 with the United Nations’ Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (SAPG), Francis Deng, and more recently with the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Edward Luck, to provide them with tools to limit the catastrophic effects of violent speech in pre-genocidal situations, without impeding the right to freedom of expression. In addition to her guidelines for evaluative monitoring of speech and other efforts, she is also producing a white paper on policy responses to limit the effects of dangerous pre-genocidal speech – paying special attention to new media which are, increasingly, the means of its dissemination. The project has focused on inflammatory speech in several countries in particular, including Cote d’Ivoire, the former Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Kenya.

We are most grateful for the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the United States Institute of Peace.

New Resources:

Dangerous Speech: A Proposal to Prevent Group Violence, January 12, 2012.

Voices that Poison

Additional Resources:

Emerging Challenges to the Freedom of Expression : From Hate Speech to Social Networks, Yale Law School, November 5th, 2011.

Speech, Song, Crime? Dangerous Speech on the Road to Atrocities, Mass Attrocity Response Operations Presentation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, April 27, 2011.

Election-Related Violence: The Role of Dangerous Speech, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 2011, Elections and Ethnic Violence

Incitement as International Crime Contribution to OHCHR Initiative on Incitement to National, Racial, or Religious Hatred, February 2011.

Francis Deng Statement January 19, 2011.

Francis Deng Statement December 29, 2010.

The New Law of Incitement to Genocide: A Critique and a Proposal Speech, Power, Violence: A Seminar of Experts. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, April 2009.

Vile Crime or Inalienable Right: Defining Incitement to Genocide Virginia Journal of International Law, Volume 48, 2008.

Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech World Policy Journal 21.2, 2004.

*****

(Photo courtesy of Harold Shapiro)