Goals
- Distinct between emotional and hate speech
- Identify the different interests and needs in regards to public discourse and democratic public
- Identify needs for social media governance from the personal and from youth perspective
Steps
1. Introduction
Using an example from everyday life, we will consider the regulation of the internet and social media. We will focus here on hate speech.
2. Freedom of expression (20 minutes)
For democratic discourse and opinion-forming, it is important that opinions can be expressed with as little censorship as possible. At the same time, restrictions serve to protect individuals from the statements of others. The following two quotes represent these two perspectives (see presentation):
Hate Aid
"We want the internet to be a place where people can exchange ideas and express different opinions on various topics. What we do not accept [...] is that those who shout the loudest, who slander, threaten and defame, are ultimately the ones whose voices remain because they have suppressed all others. There must be room for all our voices on the internet, and to that end, we want to strengthen the rights of those who would otherwise have no voice." Source: Hate Aid (N. A.)
Elon Musk
‘Free speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital marketplace where issues critical to the future of humanity are debated.’ Source: Elon Musk (York, 29 October 2022)
Find examples that support each of these quotes.
- Where have you experienced or observed a restriction of freedom of speech?
- Where was it important to give voices less space?
This makes it clear that social media and other public spaces for discussion and exchange need to be regulated. The next step is to define what specifically needs to be addressed – namely hate speech.
3. Defining hate speech (15 minutes)
What one person perceives as ‘loud’ and ‘aggressive’ may be seen by another as “lively” or ‘engaged’. Communication can quickly become heated, especially when controversial topics arise or different lifestyles and perspectives clash.
However, this is not about differences of opinion, but about deliberately damaging the reputation or legitimacy of a person or group, or about human degradation and humiliation. The presentation (Information Disorder) can be used for support.
Malinformation
Deliberately disseminated to cause harm, for example through
- Leaks
- Harassment
- Hate speech
Disinformation
False content is spread to cause harm
- False context
- Fraudulent content
- Manipulative content
- Fictitious content
Misinformation
- False references
- Misleading content
Source: Wardle &Derakshan, 2017
The moderator asks the participants to either assign the examples mentioned in 1. above or to name or find a few examples, especially of harmful information and hate speech.
Moderator mentions that many serious cases are not necessarily relevant under criminal law. So here we are also thinking about things that are bad but permissible.
4. Helpful support (30 minutes)
This is followed by a division into smaller groups with a work assignment:
1. Examples
- Collect examples of hate speech that you have encountered online. In small groups, choose which example you would like to work on. Choose one or two.
- Reminder: Focus on examples of hate speech - where someone has been deliberately harmed or attacked, exposed, spoken badly about, insulted or had something unpleasant about them made public.
- Describe your role in the case (or your likely role).
- Tell the story from the victim's perspective. Describe who did what to the person.
After collecting the examples, the groups should consider what kind of support would have been helpful from the perspective of those affected:
2. Support
|
Support during or immediately after |
Action in response to the publication/ communication |
Follow-up & aftercare |
Feel free to think utopically. What would be good, but probably doesn't exist yet?
Governance of hate speech (30 minutes)
The groups come together in a plenary session. They briefly present the examples they have worked on, but do not present the entire discussion process (max. 5 minutes per group).
The moderator then collects the ideas or requests that have been worked on in the groups on a flipchart, sorted by
- Support during or immediately after
- Action in response to the publication
- Aftercare & follow-up
The group then discusses what is particularly important to them.
Reflection
Questions for discussion could include:
- What should be implemented voluntarily, and what should be mandatory'? Which positions should be created? Mark ‘voluntary’ items in the table with an ‘F’ in a different colour.
- Accountability: Who should pay for and ensure the proper implementation of the measures?
Government (supervision of platforms, police, youth protection, etc.) - Platforms - Individuals (authors, users, parents, schools, etc.) - What specific needs do young people have in contrast to platforms, adults or politicians?
- Politicians are discussing a social media ban for younger people. To what extent would this help in this case?
Variation: Extension to Trust
Present the presentation. We are biased when it comes to the question of who should sit at the table and who should have the best cards. Because who we trust is co-determined by our civic culture and our social trust.
In a country such as Estonia, most citizens trust the state to organise and conduct clean online elections. In others, such as Germany, this would be a reason for many to question the result.
Political regulation often takes a ‘multi-stakeholder approach’ – the most important parties involved should be included – such as business, employees and politics. In social media, these would perhaps be users, platforms and supervisory authorities. Asked to what extent people have political trust (= trust politicians, parliament, political party, police, legal system, European Parliament, United Nations), the picture in Europe is:
Political Trust in Europe
Source: Muringani, Fitjar & Rodríguez-Pose (2024), p. 2072
Who do we trust?
Discuss:
- What confirms your assumptions and what surprises you?
- Share examples
- In a democracy trust is connected with the opportunity to critically check trustworthiness. What data and information would you need to assess trustworthiness, competence and ethical attitude of state, media, economy, civil society?
If you want to delve deeper, you could facilitate an American Debate to the topic: State vs. economy – who should regulate social media? (Who is ethically and factually more capable of doing so?)
References
Edelman Trust Institute (2024). Edelman Trust Barometer 2024. Supplemental Report: Insight for the Tech Sector.
Edelman Trust Institute (2025). Global Report. Trust and the Crisis of Grievance., accessed 05/05/2025
Edelman Trust Institute (2025b). , accessed 10/11/2025 Global Report. Trust and the Crisis of Grievance. With Insights for the Technology Sector
Hate Aid (N. A.). HateAid works. Our political demands https://hateaid.org/en/political-demands/
Muringani, J., Fitjar, R.D. & Rodríguez-Pose, A. Political trust and economic development in European regions. Ann Reg Sci 73, 2059–2089 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-024-01319-5
York, J. C. (29/10/2022). accessed 10/10/2025 Elon Musk doesn’t know what it takes to make a digital town square. MIT Technology Review.
Wardle, C.; Derakshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report DGI(2017)09, Strasbourg
Handbook: More than Go with the Flow
- A handbook on Digital Citizenship Education, created in the frame of the project DIYW-ROAD/Competendo. Digital Youth Work - rights-sensitive, open, accessible, democratic.
- Unless otherwise stated, authors and editors of the methods published in the project are Elisa Rapetti, Markus José Plasencia Kanzler, and Nils-Eyk Zimmermann
