In some speech-related disputes, censors do not gauge their success by whether the challenged cultural product or practice has been suppressed in accordance with their explicit demands. This article ...proposes a theory of performative censorship that can help explain this paradox. Building on the concepts of expressive laws and symbolic crusades from legal studies and social movement studies respectively, performative censorship disputes are defined as contentious episodes in which demands for or against speech regulation are expressed partly for the broader objective of gaining recognition for a group’s way of life, dignity or status. Case studies of two highly contentious conflicts are offered: over Confederate statues in the United States and cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. The case studies show that movements’ goals and tactics are neither uniform nor static, making them more complex but also presenting opportunities for de-escalation.
In the United States, elements of the religious right fuel fears of an existential Islamic threat, spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric into mainstream politics. In Indonesia, Muslim absolutists urge ...suppression of churches and minority sects, fostering a climate of rising intolerance. In India, Narendra Modi’s radical supporters instigate communal riots and academic censorship in pursuit of their Hindu nationalist vision. Outbreaks of religious intolerance are usually assumed to be visceral and spontaneous. But in Hate Spin, Cherian George shows that they often involve sophisticated campaigns manufactured by political opportunists to mobilize supporters and marginalize opponents. Right-wing networks orchestrate the giving of offense and the taking of offense as instruments of identity politics, exploiting democratic space to promote agendas that undermine democratic values.
George calls this strategy “hate spin”—a double-sided technique that combines hate speech (incitement through vilification) with manufactured offense-taking (the performing of righteous indignation). It is deployed in societies as diverse as Buddhist Myanmar and Orthodox Christian Russia. George looks at the world’s three largest democracies, where intolerant groups within India’s Hindu right, America’s Christian right, and Indonesia’s Muslim right are all accomplished users of hate spin. He also shows how the Internet and Google have opened up new opportunities for cross-border hate spin.
George argues that governments must protect vulnerable communities by prohibiting calls to action that lead directly to discrimination and violence. But laws that try to protect believers’ feelings against all provocative expression invariably backfire. They arm hate spin agents’ offense-taking campaigns with legal ammunition. Anti-discrimination laws and a commitment to religious equality will protect communities more meaningfully than misguided attempts to insulate them from insult.
The scholarship on media freedom has tended to focus on threats from state and corporate power, avoiding the awkward reality that 'people power' can also be a source of constraints. These ground ...forces can work in tandem with political and economic power, or independently. They contradict the common assumption that the public is the natural ally of independent media, against the tyranny of states and markets. While Asian publics are more able than ever before to make themselves heard, it is naive to believe that they will always use their rising voices in support of democratic values. Apathetic silence is common, especially when people do not identify with the victims of human rights abuses, or when they do not feel directly harmed by official corruption. Today, there is ample evidence that the glare of publicity does not guarantee justice. In highly polarised societies, public opinion can even turn against journalists and other critics who malign leaders, parties and movements that are seen to represent the masses. Such dynamics require closer attention to what it means for the media to be free from power, and whom exactly the media should use their freedom for.
PDF
