Democrats and Republicans agree on censoring hate speech, researchers report.
There is strong disagreement in the United States as to whether, when, and how much hate speech should be censored when posted on social media platforms. Democrats and Republicans, in particular, often argue about this question, especially in light of the Israel-Hamas war sparking further consternation over antisemitic and anti-Palestinian hate speech.
In an era of intense polarization, partisans have historically, and mistakenly, believed that members of the other party prioritize protecting certain types or victims of hate speech over others based on stereotypes or their affiliation with those potentially vulnerable groups.
The new research, however, revealed that Democrats and Republicans generally agree on what to censor when it comes to the target, source, and severity of hate speech.
“Basically, partisans misunderstand the other party’s priorities,” says Matthew E. K. Hall, one of several coauthors of the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“And these misunderstandings over hate speech censorship might lead to even greater polarization because people misrepresent the values and preferences of the other party members, which, in an election year, can reduce cross-party voting,” says Hall, the director of the University of Notre Dame’s Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy and a professor of constitutional studies.
Hall points out that one major disconnect is that Democrats overestimate and Republicans underestimate the other party’s willingness to censor speech that specifically targets white people. On the flip side, he says, both Republicans and Democrats are especially concerned about antisemitic hate speech and are more supportive of censoring anti-Black speech than any other form of hate speech.
In a survey conducted between December 8 and 22, 2023, the researchers showed more than 3,357 participants a variety of social media profiles containing potentially objectionable speech and asked whether they would remove the post or deactivate the account.
The researchers found that members of both parties chose to remove social media posts containing hate speech in the majority of profiles, regardless of the group being targeted.
More than 60% of respondents recommended removing posts that targeted Black people and more than 58% wanted to remove posts targeting Jews. Majorities also chose to remove posts targeting Palestinians (54.8%) and white people (54.6%).
Some participants felt so strongly about the hate speech that they advocated for deactivating the social media accounts altogether, most commonly for posts targeting Black people (nearly 51%) and Jews (nearly 48%).
One unexpected finding for the researchers was that neither the source’s partisanship nor position within society affected the participants’ censorship decisions. The bottom line, the researchers wrote, is that “partisans agreed on hate speech censorship based on the source—largely in that the source does not matter.”
This finding was true with one exception: Democrats were more likely to deactivate accounts owned by elected officials versus private citizens.
“Debates on hate speech moderation should focus on understanding misperceptions of censorship preferences rather than on what or who should be censored,” says first author Brittany C. Solomon, the an assistant professor of administrative leadership in Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.
Another factor considered in the study was the severity of the hate speech content—incitement to violence being the most severe. Partisans also tended to agree on censoring hate speech based on the harshness of the language, with increased support for censorship as severity increased.
While the US Constitution protects the freedom of speech, including hate speech on principle, this constitutional guarantee does not allow unfettered hate speech. The government can regulate speech if it is viewed as inciting lawlessness, posing a true threat, or breaching the peace, the researchers explain. Furthermore, private actors such as social media platforms can moderate content on their platforms as they deem necessary.
“I think the study’s findings show that social media companies can find consensus policies that can get broad support, even in this highly polarized era,” Hall says.
“Moreover, this research suggests that media framings around partisan debates—like those over free speech—are largely driven by misunderstandings,” Hall explains. “And we need to better educate the public about these misunderstandings.”
At a time when democracy is in crisis, Hall notes that it is important to focus on the country’s core and essential democratic principles, including free speech as well as voting rights and civic engagement.
“Free speech is an essential value in a democratic society, and disagreements over censorship are increasingly prominent in that realm. It’s important to think about how we build and maintain consensus around appropriate levels of censorship in order to preserve core free speech rights,” Hall says.
Hall adds that this particular study only focused on antisemitism and anti-Palestinian hate speech given the ongoing war in Israel, as well as anti-Black and anti-white speech given their significance in American culture.
“Further research on hate speech censorship should include additional comparisons across hate speech targeting other social groups,” the researchers note.
Additional coauthors are from Notre Dame and the University of Rochester.
Source: University of Notre Dame
