Hate speech is verbal aggression directed toward an individual or group, because of attributes traditionally indicative of socially vulnerable or minority groups. Group attributes frequently found in hate speech include gender, race, ability, religion, national and ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. Although hate speech is a verbal behaviour, it is a consequence of discriminatory attitudes and aggressive intentions and frequently leads to other hate crimes and physical violence.  

People often express opinions in online contexts that they would not display in face-to-face interactions. Indeed, research shows that, in online contexts, people exhibit higher levels of disinhibition, lack of empathy, deceptive behaviour, and moral disengagement regarding their own conduct. The anonymity and invisibility of online interactions lead people to feel less accountable to others. In parallel, social control measures over online misbehaviour are often perceived as ineffective, inexistent, or as not punitive enough. Thus, potential offenders are empowered to engage in misbehaviour, and both victims and witnesses are discouraged from reporting online misbehaviour. As a result, overt intolerance and hate toward socially vulnerable groups continues to be expressed in social media and tolerated by most users (witnesses and victims), without significant consequences for the offenders. Social media contributes to the rise of hate speech by offering the capacity to reach a wider audience, while providing no solution to deal with it.

Currently, Europe has been challenged by increased expression of hatred, especially directed against Muslims, Jews, Roma, migrants, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and female-identified people. The 2021 report of the Portuguese Commission for Equality against Racial Discrimination shows that nationality was the most frequently cited attribute mentioned in discrimination complaints in Portugal. Similarly, Spain’s 2021 report by the National Office Against Hate Crimes of the Ministry of the Interior shows that race/nationality, sexual orientation, and gender identity were the strongest motivations for hate crimes in Spain. 

Despite efforts across the EU to control hate speech, it has been on the rise, especially online. Reported hate crimes in general have been slightly increasing in Portugal, Spain (except for 2020) and the EU. However, according to a 2021 EU Agency for Fundamental Rights report, nine out of ten victims of hate crimes do not report the crime. Thus, there is a gap between the occurrence of such crimes and the ability of public institutions to detect them.

Several factors contribute to the gap between actual and reported cases of hate speech. First, there is a lack of legal consensus across European countries, not only about whether hate speech is a crime, but also about how to report it and bring it to trial. Such lack of consensus causes ambiguity regarding how to address hate speech as an intolerable behaviour that must be reported. Second, the confusion between hate speech and the right to freedom of expression also contributes to the tolerance of hate speech. Finally, although many social media platforms have implemented control mechanisms to reduce misbehaviour (e.g., hate speech detection algorithms, report buttons), hate speech often goes undetected, and citizens perceive the inefficacy of these control mechanisms to combat hate speech. Hate speech detection is dependent on algorithms—which might not be accurate and which require constant updating—and on users’ willingness to report hate speech. The perception that control mechanisms are ineffective decreases users’ motivation to report hate speech, according to data from the EU-MIDIS II, 2016.

Social factors also contribute to the gap between actual and reported cases of hate speech. The bystander effect is one of the main reasons: Witnesses often fail to report hate crimes they witness, blurring the real magnitude of these crimes and indirectly legitimising and perpetuating their occurrence. Bystander behaviour may, thus, represent a surrogate or indirect—but no less consequential—discriminatory practice against socially vulnerable groups. Additionally, hate speech is fluid, flexible and context-dependent, and new target groups can emerge unexpectedly (e.g., Chinese people during the pandemic and Russian people during the war between Russia and Ukraine). The emergence of new hate targets creates challenges for diagnosing hate speech and protecting victims. Finally, some opinion makers have adopted hate speech as part of their public discourse (e.g., right-wing nationalists targeting immigrants). Given the power of these figures in influencing public opinion, their use of hate speech might legitimise and normalise its use more broadly and even incite violence. 

The rise of online hate speech (as well as other types of online misbehaviour) is a result, among other factors, of the disinhibition that people feel online. Such disinhibition increases the likelihood that someone will use hate speech and decreases witnesses’ accountability, leading to under-reporting. In parallel to the rise of hate speech, there is a gap between the occurrence and reporting of hate speech. According to the literature, this gap can be explained by 1) a lack of consensus over the legal definition of hate speech and whether it constitutes a crime, 2) the inability to detect and measure hate speech, 3) the normalisation of hate speech as a legitimate behaviour, and 4) low trust in existent control mechanisms to effectively combat hate speech. Despite these factors, ordinary citizens should also be accountable and responsible for detecting and reporting online hate speech. Passive behaviour in the face of hate speech is a way to legitimise and perpetuate online misbehaviour, and to make online contexts unsafe, divisive, and violent spaces that citizens, ultimately, will need to be protected from. 

Brewster, M., & Tucker, J. M. (2016). Understanding bystander behavior: The influence of and interaction between bystander characteristics and situational factors. Victims & Offenders, 11(3), 455-481. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, FRA (2018). Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. (2018). Xenophobia, Radicalism, and Hate Crime in Europe (Annual Report HDIM.NGO/0303/2018).  

Siapera, E., Moreo, E., & Zhou, J. (2018). Hate Track: Tracking and Monitoring Online Racist Speech (Technical Report of HateTrack Project).