From The Freedom Blog.
Spain's New "Hate and Polarisation Footprint" Has a Strong Whiff of Totalitarianism¨
David Thunder
Mar 20
A few weeks ago, the president of Spain used the occasion of a “forum against hate” in Madrid to launch “HODIO,” a “hatred and polarisation footprint” created by the Spanish Observatory for Racisim and Xenophobia and the Ministry for Inclusion, Social Security and Migration.
The goal of the new “hatred and polarisation footprint” is to create a public measure of the amount of hateful and polarising discourse occurring on social media platforms available in Spain and to use this measure, to quote Sánchez, to “demand responsibility” from the platforms for restricting the polarising “amplification” of hate speech.
In spite of the appearance of “science” and “objectivity” that the word “measurement” might suggest, there could be nothing more partisan and politically charged than the “HODIO” initiative, which effectively assigns to the national government of Spain the function of combatting “hatred” and “polarisation” on the internet – two terms that do not lend themselves to any clear and non-partisan interpretation.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes is the conversion of political rulers into unquestionable authorities on truth and falsehood and virtue and vice. Instead of concerning themselves with external actions that palpably disrupt public order or attack basic rights like property and bodily integrity, totalitarian rulers use all the means at their disposal to school citizens on the right and wrong sorts of attitudes, beliefs and speech to adopt in their everyday life. In short, government becomes the policeman not only of public order, but of social and personal morality.
And because governments are immensely powerful actors with vested interests in shielding their power from criticism, their attempts to tutor citizens on the finer points of morality almost always reflect a distorted and highly self-interested vision of justice and morality.
For example, the right to punish “un-patriotic” behaviour has been used, historically, to coercively suppress uncomfortable criticisms of controversial wars. The right to shut down “toxic,” “discriminatory” or “hateful” speech has typically been used as an excuse to censor citizens who dissent from the ideology favoured by government ministers, and rarely to censor friends of the government.
So when the President of Spain waxes lyrical about the need to spend more time talking about “love” and less talking about “hate,” and in the same breath launches a government-sponsored “hatred and polarisation footprint” to monitor social media, those familiar with the totalitarian playbook will recognise that the mix of moralism, technocracy, and political power is itself the “footprint” of a totalitarian movement in the making.
President Sánchez mixes truth and falsehood, which gives an air of plausibility to his attack on hate speech. There is indeed a problem with the way social media platforms tend to amplify emotionally charged speech, in particular angry and hostile speech, while they tend to mute more moderate and emotionally cool interventions. And there are simplistic and stereotypical messages that carry more easily on social media than complex and nuanced analysis.
But employing technocrats to create a hate and polarisation “footprint” as a basis for restricting speech is not going to create a more healthy public sphere. On the contrary, as we have already seen in the operation of other hate speech regimes, it will simply serve as a tool for suppressing political content that is disfavoured by the technocrat and his master.
That is because you cannot objectively or mathematically measure “hate and polarisation.” For hate and polarisation are highly subjective and morally loaded concepts. Precisely which sorts of combative speech or behaviour are unacceptably “hateful” or disrespectful and which are legitimate exercises of free speech? Until this thorny question is settled, “measurement” is completely arbitrary.
Similarly, the concept of “polarisation” is meaningless in a moral vacuum. All combative, high-stakes political speech is potentially “polarising.” Therefore, the question is not, which speech is polarising, but which speech is polarising in a dangerous or “toxic” way? That is where morality and ideology come into play. From the point of view of a government, almost any hard-hitting criticism of its policies may be viewed as unacceptably “polarising.” The concept is so open-ended that it invites a self-serving interpretation, one that inevitably suits the political ends of the incumbent government.
So let us hope that citizens will not be deceived by the language of science and measurement. Sanchez’s new hate and polarisation footprint is not a valiant defence of the integrity of the public sphere, or a noble harnessing of science for the common good, but a shameless pretext for suppressing voices that do not share the government’s vision of “love” and “social cohesion.”
Saludos
THE FREEDOM BLOG is a reader-supported publication.
Nota. La introducción del "discurso de odio" en el CP tuvo lugar de la mano de Stalin y Mao en la URSS y en China respectivamente. En España Felipe González lo lleva al Código Penal (510 CP 95) y Rodríguez Zapatero lo expande (Exp. 510 CP 2004). La libertad de expresión no gusta a los poderosos.
