Boundaries of Hate: Ethical Implications of the Discursive Construction of Hate Speech in U.S. Opinion Journalism

ABSTRACT

In the United States, hate speech sits at the intersection of ethical and legal debates and has a complex relationship with journalism. The First Amendment provides broad legal protections for hate speech, and U.S. journalists have historically been known for their advocacy for speech freedoms. However, ethical debate persists about the extent to which hate speech should be used within U.S. public discourse. At the nexus of this debate are journalists with intersecting and – possibly – competing duties. This study examines the discursive construction of hate speech in U.S. opinion journalism, analyzing journalistic discourse published in U.S. editorials and opinion columns between 1998 and 2019. The study finds five key themes that, together, indicate the use of hate speech as a means to articulate a libertarian interpretation of public discourse, facilitating a reductionist conception of freedom of expression that does not live up to journalism’s duties to democracy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ The search string was: ((hate OR racis* OR sexis* OR homophobi* OR extrem* OR “white nationalis*”) w/1 speech) NOT (“social media” OR “social network” OR Facebook OR Twitter OR YouTube).