The phenomenon of hate in public discourse

The article undertakes hate issue in public discourse, mainly in the Internet-a negative phenomenon that has become a serious social problem in last few years and which infracts all moral and legal norms. Article brings up question of freedom of speech or anonymity in the Internet. It’s starting point is attempt to define the term of ‘hate’ (including other terms associated with it) and point out the causes of hate. The article presents examples of people who have become victims of hate-including well-known journalists, celebrities but also ordinary people who are not public figures. The article discusses the problem of using Internet hate for political and propaganda purposes; e ven the existence of ‘Internet industry of hate’. Afterwards, it points out the examples of counteracting this issue. Discusses the huge role and necessity of education from an early age and the need for changes in Polish law and legislation. The article also describes examples of specific social campaigns organized by foundations and associations which are fighting against hate in the Web, as well as in public space. The scientific method that is used in the article is mainly the analysis of the content.

Hate speech in relation to racial, national and ethnic minorities as the limitation of freedom of expression. Notes on the example of selected judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Hate speech in relation to racial, national and ethnic minorities is a common matter, appearing more and more frequently in public space and taking different forms depending on its brutality. There is a very thin line between hate speech and freedom of expression. Confronted with the wider freedom of speech and expression, hate speech requires taking some critical steps by both domestic and international authorities. The European Court of Human Rights, while examining the complaints concerning violations of the freedom of expression, verifies whether its limitations have certain grounds in the applicable law. The past jurisprudence of the Court clearly indicates when freedom of speech ends and hate speech begins, especially when offensive content is formulated in the mass media, e.g., on the Internet.

Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 22 października 2020 roku dotyczący aborcji eugenicznej spowodował lawinę nienawiści kobiet wobec rządu PiS. Dialog publiczny między kobietami, a obozem władzy stał się monologiem. Rozpoczął się strajk kobiet, pomimo zagrożenia sanitarnego. Strajk kobiet należy do grupy nowych ruchów społecznych, które organizują się spontanicznie za pośrednictwem nowych mediów w przestrzeni wirtualnej. Strajkujące kobiety zaczęły używać języka agresywnego, wulgarnego by podkreślić swoją złość. Język z ulicznych strajków stał się obecny na stronach Facebooka o charakterze feministycznym, lewicowym i proaborcyjnym. Analiza została przeprowadzona na podstawie statystyk treści znajdujących się w części polskojęzycznej mediów społecznościowych, z wyszczególnieniem Facebooka w czasie od 22.10.2020 do 1.01.2021 r.

Strangers (still?) at home. Online entries by Magdalena Ogórek and Rafał Ziemkiewicz as an example of hate speech and the strategy of exclusion

This article is devoted to the issue of the hate speech in Polish public discourse. One of the ways to become aware of the negative nature of hate speech can be intercultural education. In 2018, the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw organized an exhibition “Strangers at Home”, dedicated to the events of March ’68. In addition to the memorabilia related to Jewish-rooted people’s leaving Poland, there were also records of contemporary hate and hate speech, juxtaposed with some examples from 1968. Among them, there were the entries of journalists Magdalena Ogórek and Rafał Ziemkiewicz, which have the character of contemporary anti-Semitism.

Gloss to the Judgment of the District Court in Kielce of August 25, 2022, file ref. no. IX Ka 715/22

The gloss aims to indicate the limits of freedom of expression, set by provisions on hate speech and destruction of property. These limits are indicated by the analyzed case where the property was damaged as a result of publicly displaying political posters. However, the court misinterpreted the law, leading to a conviction for an offense rather than a crime. There was also no obligation to redress the damage. The author discusses how there were generally no grounds for conviction and the accused should be acquitted for a different reason.