A Hammer Against Haters
The penalty for hate speech should be like a speeding ticket from a traffic camera: swift, unavoidable, and severe. To say that social media fuels the phenomenon of hate speech is almost to say nothing. The Sixth Estate has become an anonymous, unaccountable forum of scornful venom. Today, it is a thoroughly studied social engineering and mental manipulation tool. Meanwhile, deepfakes and artificial intelligence introduce new threats to our cognitive integrity.
Józef Tischner’s philosophy suggests that “crooked mirrors” are often the source of conflict among people. According to this thought, placing a distorted mirror between people is enough to portray the other person as worse, deceitful, or treacherous. Observing such a warped image, people begin to “correct” each other, which only escalates violence. To break this cycle, the solution is to turn away from these crooked mirrors and look at others directly, without prejudice or distortion. However, this approach assumes humanism on both sides, no anonymity, and a willingness to reach a compromise.
In classically understood hate, anonymity prevails, driven by the mockery of trolls hailing from forums like 4chan and the dark corners of the dark web. Social media’s social engineering tactics have long since crossed boundaries, evolving into tools of manipulation by troll farms, commissioned hate campaigns, or influencers exploiting divisive narratives for personal gain. Until 2010, it was believed that social media could not escalate from cyberbullying to physical aggression. Today, this doubt no longer exists. Moreover, cyberterrorism is becoming more common. “Tomorrow, a terrorist may cause more harm using a keyboard than a bomb.”
Barry Collin, credited with coining the term “cyberterrorism” in the 1980s, defined it as the deliberate use of information systems, computer networks, or their components to support or facilitate terrorist activities. Today, this original definition needs significant expansion. Hate, deepfakes, and the use of AI, especially when organized and funded by governments or terrorist organizations, are undoubtedly forms of cyberterrorism. This challenge does not only concern the average citizen. Individuals like Polish entrepreneur Rafał Brzoska or Australia’s Andrew Forrest have also fought against companies like Meta regarding fraudulent ads.
If someone publicly calls me an “idiot,” can I go to court? Essentially, yes. Such behavior can be considered defamation. Since defamation is pursued through private prosecution, a private complaint must be filed to initiate proceedings. However, gathering evidence, such as witness statements or other materials, is essential to substantiate the incident.
Discussions on this issue should not be politicized. In Poland, however, opinions have arisen regarding a new anti-hate law proposed by various political groups aimed at combating anonymous hate online. The legislation would allow plaintiffs to file “blind lawsuits” and require website administrators to disclose offenders’ identities, with a fine of up to $250,000 for refusal. Critics argue that the law could burden the courts and restrict online privacy.
Once again, the fight against hate speech faces arguments suggesting that it violates freedom of expression and constitutes censorship. However, hate has nothing to do with these rights.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that guarantees the ability to express thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. However, this right comes with responsibility; some boundaries must not be crossed under the guise of free speech. Hate and hate speech fall outside these boundaries — they are distortions and abuses of this right.
Free speech is the ability to speak without fear of repression, but is not the right to insult, humiliate, or discriminate against others. When statements turn into attacks against others, fuel hostility, or incite violence, they lose the essence of free speech and become hate speech. In democracy, free speech fosters dialogue, seeks understanding, and promotes empathy. Hate, instead of strengthening dialogue, destroys it, fueling division and aggression.
Hate speech reinforces stereotypes and builds barriers between people, fueling negative emotions and prejudices while deepening societal divisions. Repeated attacks and negative messages toward specific groups or individuals affect how others perceive them. Stereotypes are often difficult or impossible to change, especially when blind fanaticism drives those holding them.
On November 4, I highlighted modern threats and the influence of Elon Musk, who wields considerable influence over global communication as the owner of Twitter (now X). Musk makes controversial decisions, such as engaging in talks with Russian leaders raising concerns in public opinion and the United States, as his activities are not free from political and business interests. His acquisition of Twitter transformed the platform from a space for open information exchange into an increasingly controlled and manipulated environment.
The proposed changes to hate and hate speech laws should, first and foremost, require internet operators to provide the judiciary with the data necessary for everyone to protect their rights. Anonymity, after all, is what most haters fear. In Poland, one TV journalist, Jarosław Kuźniar, proved this long ago by revealing the identities of haters, becoming the face of a social campaign against online hate speech.
Opponents of these legal changes also argue that civil cases will “clog” the courts with such lawsuits. However, this could be managed by implementing simplified procedures. While calling someone an “idiot” might require witness testimony, internet operators can identify online haters through their IP addresses. Telecom operators must register data on internet connections, including IP addresses, connection times, and user information. Of course, this doesn’t eradicate hate, but it could significantly reduce it.
Another consideration is reducing anonymity. LinkedIn has long implemented free ID verification, while Facebook and Twitter charge for this service. Additionally, online etiquette advises against engaging in pointless arguments with anonymous accounts — simply blocking them is a part of digital hygiene. Unfortunately, social media algorithms are indifferent to the nature of discussions, focusing solely on reach, often achieved through emotional disputes, storms, or tabloidization (e.g., Australia is considering limiting social media access only to those aged 16+).
Finally, there is the well-known legal principle of the inevitability of punishment. A hater exposed, fined, or sentenced to a specific restriction within 24 hours and required to issue a public apology may think twice before insulting or threatening someone.
