This article explores hate speech against the Roma in Slovakia on Facebook between April 2016 and January 2017 and the impact of fact-checking and personal experience strategies in countering hate speech through a quasi-experimental research design. It examines how the Roma were constructed and how discussion participants reacted to our pro-Roma interventions. The research sample consisted of 60 Facebook discussions (with more than 7,500 comments) on Roma-related topics posted by the profiles of various members of the Slovak Parliament and the most popular online news media outlets. Qualitative content analysis revealed that the Roma in Facebook discussions were constructed primarily in a negative sense, as asocial criminals misusing welfare benefits. This study demonstrated that Facebook discussion participants presenting anti-Roma attitudes did not use any research evidence to support their constructions. It also demonstrated that pro-Roma comments encouraged other participants with a pro-Roma attitude to become involved.
AtchisonC. H. (2000). Emerging styles of social control on the Internet: Justice denied. Critical Criminology, 9, 85–99.
2.
BacchiC. L. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education.
3.
BallS. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
4.
BallS. J. (2012). Politics and policy making in education. London, England: Routledge.
5.
BanksJ. (2010). Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24, 233–239.
6.
BoeckmannR. J.LiewJ. (2002). Hate speech: Asian American students’ justice judgments and psychological responses. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 363–381.
7.
BurnapP.WilliamsM. L. (2015). Cyber hate speech on Twitter. An application of machine classification and statistical modelling for policy and decision making. Policy and Internet, 7, 223–242.
8.
BurrV. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
9.
ByersB. D.JonesJ. A. (2007). The impact of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on anti-Islamic hate crime. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 5, 43–56.
10.
CastañedaH. (2014). European mobilities or poverty migration? Discourses on Roma in Germany. International Migration, 53, 87–99.
11.
CitronD. K.NortonH. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435–1484.
12.
CostelloM.HawdonJ.CrossA. (2017). Virtually standing up or standing by? Correlates of enacting social control online. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 6, 16–28.
13.
CostelloM.HawdonJ.RatliffT. (2016). Confronting online extremism: The effect of self-help, collective efficacy, and guardianship on being a target for hate speech. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 587–605.
14.
CostelloM.HawdonJ.RatliffT.GranthamT. (2016). Who views online extremism? Individual attributes leading to exposure. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 311–320.
15.
CreswellJ. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
De CeccoJ. P.EliaJ. P. (2013). If you seduce a straight person, can you make them gay? Issues in biological essentialism versus social constructionism in gay and lesbian identities. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
DelgadoR.StefancicJ. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
18.
DharmapalaD.McAdamsR. H. (2005). Words that kill? An economic model of the influence of speech on behavior (with Particular Reference to Hate Speech). The Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 93–136.
19.
DurrheimK.GreenerR.WhiteheadK. A. (2015). Race trouble: Attending to race and racism in online interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 84–99.
20.
FernbachP. M.RogersT.FoxC. R.SlomanS. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by and Illusion of Understanding. Psychological Science, 24, 939–946.
21.
FoucaultM. (1977). The archaeology of knowledge. London, England: Tavistock.
22.
FoucaultM. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage.
23.
FoxmanA. H.WolfC. (2013). Viral hate: Containing its spread on the Internet. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). (2016). EU-MIDIS II: Second European Union minorities and discrimination survey: Roma—selected findings. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
25.
FyfeS. (2017). Tracking hate speech acts as incitement to genocide in international criminal law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30, 523–548.
26.
GergenM.GergenK. J. (2003). Social construction: A reader. London, England: Sage.
27.
HackingI. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Hatefree Culture. (2017). Jak reagovat na nenávist na internetu[How to react to the hate on Internet]. Praha, Slovakia: Agentura pro sociální začleňování. Retrieved July 30, 2017 from the World Wide Webhttps://www.hatefree.cz/jak-reagovat-na-nenavist-na-internetu
29.
HawdonJ.OksanenA.RäsänenP. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations: A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38, 254–266.
30.
HrdinaM. (2016). Identity, activism and hatred: Hate speech against migrants on Facebook in the Czech Republic in 2015. Naše společnosť, 14, 38–47.
31.
KeipiTNäsiM.OksanenA.RäsänenP. (2016). Online hate and hateful content: Cross-national perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
KováčováL.MiškolciJ.RigováE. (2017). Diskutuj bez nenávisti. Stratégie na znižovanie nenávistných prejavov v online priestore [In Slovak] [Discuss without hate: Strategies to counter hate speech online]. Bratislava, Slovakia: Slovak Governance Institute.
33.
KramerA. D. I.GuilloryJ. E.HancockJ. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8788–8790.
34.
KripleanT.BonnarC.BorningA.KinneyB.GillB. (2014). Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue. Proceedings of the 17th Association of Computing Machinery conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. February 15–19, New York.
35.
LacyS.WatsonB. R.RiffeD.LovejoyJ. (2015). Issues and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 791–811.
36.
LawsonR. (2006). The science cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1667–1675.
37.
LiaoQ. V.FuW. T. (2013, 0427–052). Beyond the filter bubble: Interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Retrieved July 30, 2017, from the World Wide Webhttps://dl.acm.org/purchase.cfm?id=2481326&CFID=953875486&CFTOKEN=97626206
38.
LongT.JohnsonM. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4, 30–37.
39.
MacháčekL. (2013). Vzťah slovenských občanov a mládeže k pravicovému extrémizmu [The relationship of the Slovak citizens and youth towards right-wing extremism]. In ŠtefančíkR.MacháčekL.PolákováE.SpálováL.KluknavskáA.BielikováM.ŠrámekĽ. (Eds.), Pravicový extrémizmus a mládež na Slovensku [Right-wing extremism and youth in Slovakia] (pp. 37–91). Brno, Czech Republic: Tribun EU.
40.
MaitraI. (2012). Subordinating speech. In MaitraI.McGowanM. K. (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 94–120). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
McMichaelP. (2011). Development and social change: A global perspective (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
MEDIANSK. (2015). Kontinuálny multiklientsky prieskum spotrebného správania, mediálnej konzumácie a životného štýlu [Continual multi-client survey on consumer behaviour, media consumption and life style]. Retrieved July 30, 2017, from the World Wide Webhttp://www.median.sk/sk/mml-tgi/
43.
MolnarP. (2012). Responding to “hate speech” with art education and the imminent danger test. In HerzM.MolnarP. (Eds.), The content and context of hate speech: Rethinking regulation and responses (pp. 183–197). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
MušinkaA.ŠkoblaD.HurrleJ.MatlovičováK.KlingJ. (2014). Atlas rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2013 [In Slovak] [The atlas of Roma communities in Slovakia 2013]. Bratislava, Slovakia: UNDP.
45.
NewW. (2012). Stigma and Roma education policy reform in Slovakia. European Education, 43, 45–61.
46.
NielsenL. B. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful: Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 265–280.
47.
O’CallaghanD.GreeneD.ConwayM.CarthyJ.CunninghamP. (2015). Down the (White) rabbit hole: The extreme right and online recommender system. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 459–478.
48.
OttB. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34, 59–68.
49.
PattenM. L.NewhartM. (2017). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (10th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge.
RäsänenP.HawdonJ.HolkeriE.KeipiT.NäsiM.OksanenA. (2016). Targets of online hate: Examining determinants of victimization among young Finnish Facebook users. Violence and Victims, 31, 708–726.
52.
SimpsonR. M. (2013). Dignity, harm, and hate speech. Law and Philosophy, 32, 701–728.
53.
SponholzL. (2016). Islamophobic hate speech—What is the point of counter speech. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 36, 502–522.
54.
StăiculescuA. R.GherasimM. (2013). Roma representation in the media. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 5, 947–955.
55.
SurduM.KovatsM. (2015). Roma identity as an expert-political construction. Social Inclusion, 3, 5–18.
56.
TirrellL. (2012). Genocidal language games. In MaitraI.McGowanM. K. (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies of free speech (pp. 222–238). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
57.
TitleyG.KeenE.FoldiL. (2012). Starting points for combating hate speech online: Three studies about online hate speech and ways to address it. Council of Europe, British Institute of Human Rights. Retrieved July 30, 2017, from the World Wide Webhttps://rm.coe.int/1680665ba7
58.
VašečkaM. (2009). Postoje verejnosti k cudzincom a zahraničnej migrácii v Slovenskej republike [In Slovak] [The attitudes of the public towards foreigners and foreign migration in the Slovak Republic]. Bratislava, Slovakia: International Organization for Migration.
59.
VelšicM. (2016). Mladí ľudia v kyberpriestore: Šance a riziká pre demokraciu [In Slovak] [Young people in cyberspace—Chances and risks for democracy]. Bratislava, Slovakia: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.
60.
VermeerschP. (2012). Reframing the Roma: EU initiatives and the politics of reinterpretation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 1195–1212.
61.
WalshC.KriegB. (2007). Roma identity: Contrasting constructions. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 39, 1/2, 169–186.
62.
WestC. (2012). Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech. In MaitraI.McGowanM. K. (Eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 222–248). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
63.
YongC. (2011). Does freedom of speech include hate speech?Res Publica, 17, 385–403.
64.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
65.
YoungI. M. (2001). Equality of whom? Social groups and judgments of injustice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 1–18.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
