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.
Prof. Susan Benesch has developed a set of guidelines for making the distinction as part of her Dangerous Speech Project, based at the World Policy Institute in New York. The guidelines are 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.
Prof. 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, the Fetzer Institute, and the United States Institute of Peace.
