Hate Speech in Arabic Newspaper Cyber Law
Case Study In Al-Jazeera.Net Daily Newspaper
Muhammad Yunus Anis, Likha Sari Anggreni and Monika Sri Yuliarti
Universitas Sebelas Maret
yunus_678@staff.uns.ac.id
Keywords: The Variant Discourses of Hate Speech, Social Legislation, al-Jazera.net.
Abstract: The goverment has the power to fight the hate speech. But the social power has more powerful then goverment
to reduce the hate speech. Thus, social power is the main factor to solve the problem of hate speech. In the
Arabic world, the discourse of hate speech was focused in the religion, social group, and madzhab problems.
Thus, the aims of this research had been divided into two basic groups, they are: elaborating the variant
discourses of hate speech and the social legislation in reducing the hate speech. This research had been used
the qualitative method. The data will be analyzed by the descriptive method (describing the structure of
language).The implications of the research goals had been focused to reducing the spreading of hatred in
journalism through the variants of Arabic discourses. The result of the research had been concluded that the
hate speech had been correlated with the three main substances in Arabic discourses, such as: (a) al-‘adā`
(hostility or antagonism), (b) al-maqat (hatred), and (c) al-`ichtiqār (contempt). This research will investigate
two basic problems, (1) the variant discourses of hate speech in Al-Jazeera.net, and (2) the social policy or
legilslation in reducing the hate speech in Arabic journalism.
1 INTRODUCTION
Hate speech had been spreading massively, especially
in the field of politics, religion, and culture. In this
case, hate speech was supported by the social media.
It had become the interpersonal communication
across the globe and borders of the modern era.
“Every man may think as he pleases, and say what he
thinks”. But, the people should remember that hate
speech is not free speech. For, example if we talk
about a tolerance, the limit of the tolerance is not the
tolerance to intolerance; it can against the system and
definition of tolerance itself. If we talk about free
speech, it cannot be concluded that the limit of free
speech is legalization of hate speech itself. Hate
speech can be approached from many sides, such as:
law, communication, language, and social aspect. In
this article, hate speech will be elaborated from the
main side of language and social legislation. If we
consider hate speech from the side of law, we can
make a definition of hate speech as the expression
which had the instigation or provocation, and it can
make the target groups were in danger and worried.
The target of hate speech always comes from the
social group (UNESCO, Jubani and Roiha).
In the new modern era, hate speech has some
characteristics, based on UNESCO data, such as: (1)
permanence, the hate speech was taken place in the
long period of time, with the different forms, it was
spread with many variant kinds of platform, it also
was connected each other repeatedly, (2) itinerancy,
or the power to endure, it means that the contents of
hate speech are still being in the other places, with the
different names or platforms, although the hate
speech had been vanished and completely removed,
thus the hate speech still has been enduring,
occurring, and continuing, (3) anonymity/
pseudonymity, we can usually find the form of hate
speech is anonymous, it makes the disseminator of
hate speech feeling pleasant and comfortable to
spreading it widely, so the disseminator does not take
risk and consequences, (4) trans-nationality, it means
that the hate speech can break through the nationality
boundaries. If we want to investigate the hate speech
from language discourse, we can take a look the
definition of hate speech as follow, the term of “hate
speech” can be translated into Arabic language as /al-
khitābāt al-karahiyyah/ ( ).’Izat had
given the definition of hate speech from three main
elements below.
Anis, M., Anggreni, L. and Yuliarti, M.
Hate Speech in Arabic Newspaper Cyber Law - Case Study In Al-Jazeera.Net Daily Newspaper.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 1, pages 615-620
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
615
:
.
(‘Izat, 2017:7)
‘Izat also emphasized that hate speech had been
correlated with the three main substances in Arabic
language, such as: (1) al-‘adā` (hostility or
antagonism), (2) al-maqat (hatred), and (3) al-
`ichtiqār (contempt). Hate speech has a specific form
of provocation and agitation that make people, social
group, and social demography in dangerous. The
previous research about hate speech in Arabic
language which had been done before just focused in
pragmatics and discourse analysis (Mazid, 2012). But
in the case of material objects of research, the
previous research had not elaborated specifically
about the comments of the news which had been
published in Instagram of Aljazeera. Zahrah (2014)
also had been elaborated the Arabic hate speech, but
the research from Zahrah just focused into the hate
speech in Arab spring media center. Oksanen (2014)
pointed the hate speech on facebook about orientation
of sex, physical appearance, and ethnicity. Alam
(2016) also had elaborated about hate speech
comprehensively in Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society, this research
focused in the implementation of laws about the
dominance of India police power to punish someone
who uploads the comments containing hatred speech.
Karjo (2016) had investigated the hate speech from
ADP, a well-known Indonesian musician and artist,
the findings show that most of ADP’s tweets use
representative speech act and they can be categorized
as hate speech because they contain insults to the
addressees based on their race, religion, and sexual
orientation. This article will make a focus of analysis
from the language side dominantly. Although, it
cannot be getting loose from the extra-lingual factors
(outside the language aspects). Lillian (2007) has
concluded that sexist discourse is one kind of hate
speech. By looking the substances of hate speech in
Arabic language, this article will unlock the problems
about how the variant of hate speech in Arabic
discourses. Anis (2017) in the previous research had
been elaborated the discourse using the units of
language related the personality of Imam Al-Ghazali,
in this case, the discourse analysis based on the units
of language will be elaborated in the Arabic hate
speech. This analysis will be started from the units of
languages, such as: word, phrase, clause, and
sentence. The units of languages were observed from
the main data which had been taken from Arabic daily
newspaper on line, in this case Al-Jazeera.
2 METHODS
The scientific research always had been started by the
accurate plan. This plan, in the field research,
appropriated the same logic, because the plan actually
a part of instruction constructed logically and
systematically. This research had been used the
qualitative method. The data will be analyzed by the
descriptive method (describing the structure of
language). The methods in this research was divided
into three basic parts: (1) collecting the data, (2)
analysis the data, and (3) reporting the data.
Collecting the data had been used the observation
method to gain the informations about hate speech in
Arabic language, especially in the media on line, al-
Jazeera daily newspaper. The reason why this object
material was selected because the contents of Al-
Jazeera were very famous in Arab world and it can be
represented of Middle East opinion to look at the
phenomena. This channel also had the controversies
associated with Al-Jazeera. While Al-Jazeera has a
large audience in the Middle East, the organization
and the original Arabic channel in particular have
been criticized and involved in a number of
controversies. In the present days, the present attempt
by the government of Israel to close down Al-
Jazeera’s offices in Jerusalem. This research was
using the discourse analysis. The data will be
analyzed using discourse theory from Halliday
(1994). M.A.K Halliday (1994:22) declared three
dimensions of (1) field, (2) mode, and (3) tenor to
determine the functional variety of a language. These
three parameters can gain the context of situation in
which language is used and to determine the register
or the type of language used in particular situation.
Field of discourse is defined as “the total event, in
which the text is functioning, together with the
purposive activity of the speaker or writer; it thus
includes the subject-matter as one element in it”. The
field describes activities and processes that are
happening at the time of speech. The analysis of this
parameter focuses on the entire situation, e.g. when a
mother talks to her child. The Mode of discourse
refers to “the function of the text in the event,
including therefore both the channel taken by the
language – spoken or written, extempore or prepared
– and its [genre], or rhetorical mode, as narrative,
didactic, persuasive, ‘phatic communion’ and so on.
Tenor of discourse (sometimes also referred to as
style) describes the people that take part in an event
as well as their relationship and statuses. The tenor
refers to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant
social relations, permanent, and temporary, among
the participants involved. The first step in this
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
616
research is preparing the data, the unit of language in
this research was collected using the deeply
observation using the sence of language. The data
which had the great validation will be analyzed in the
discourse analysis correlated with the hate speech in
Arabic language. The data was written up and
classified in the certain data cards. The data should
gain the adequate size. The second step using in this
research is the data analysis. The top step of this
research had been used the distributional method and
approach to process the main data. The distributional
method (also called with “metode Agih”, in Bahasa
Indonesia) is the method that used the tool determiner
from the pertinent language its self. The data had been
gained from the certain unit of language. The data
was correlated with the variants of hate speech in the
Arabic language. For the last step, reporting the data
analysis can be presented by written and oral
language. This paper is a descriptive qualitative
research paper. It describes (1) the variants discourse
of hate speech in Al-Jazera.net, and (2) the social
policy or social legilslation in reducing the hate
speech in Arabic journalism.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the main problems in this research, this part
of findings and discussion will be divided into two
basic outcomes of the research, they are: (1)
describing and investigating the variant discourses of
hate speech in Al-Jazera.net, and (2) recommend the
social legislation in reducing the hate speech in
Arabic Journalism. Gagliardone (2015:10) had been
concluded that the definition of hate speech
sometimes becomes elusive term, hard to
comprehend, and difficult to describe. But there is a
main standard to examine the expression being hate
speech or not, hate speech can be identified by
approximation through the “degrading” or
“dehumanizing” functions that it serves. There are
two types of expression which can be identified as
hate speech. The first is to the targeted group and
functions to dehumanize and diminish members
assigned to this group. Another function of hate
speech is to let others with similar views know they
are not alone, to reinforce a sense of an in-group that
is under threat. In this case, it will elaborate about the
variants of hate speech from the linguistics side, using
the lexicon and discourse analysis.
3.1 The Variant Discourses of Hate
Speech in Al-Jazera.net
‘Izat (2017:9-10) had concluded that the form of hate
speech has near connection with the “instigation” or
“provocation” (at-tachrīdh - ). There are three
basic forms of hate speech, they are: (1) the
provocation for violence ( ), (2) the
provocation for hatred/ hostility (
), and (3) the provocation for discrimination
( ) to reinforce a sense of an in-group
that is under threat. The form of hate speech in the
group 1 (provocation for violence) can be looked at
from the data 1 below, from aljazeeraarabic (
) the daily newspaper, official account of Al-
Jazeera news channel (
) (www.aljazeera.net) in the Instagram, there
are 4746 posts when the data in this article were being
collected, 1.6m followers, and 2 following.
# #
# ..
Ghārat at-tachāluf al-‘Arabiy biqiyādah #as-
Saʻūdiyyah ‘alāl-Yaman tuqtalu ālāfu madaniyiin.
akhthā’a taqniyyah am tajāhul lil-qānūni al-insāniy?
#Al-Jazeera
Arab alliance raids led by #Saudi Arabia on
#Yemen kill thousands of civilians.. Technical errors
or disregard for humanitarian law?
Data 1 was taken from the caption of the video
which had been uploaded by aljazeeraarabi, 6 days
ago (August 28, 2017). And there are some comments
from this caption, such as:
(1) adoiri
(2) zahiddeedar ..
(3) hassanak7777
!!
(4) mi6013mimi Laknatullo
(5) oz5w
(6) bader73h
Data 1 had represented the provocation for
violence. The question (Technical errors or
disregard for humanitarian law) can provoke the
readers, in comments into hatred. For example, the
comment number (1), from adoiri account, had said
“achfād abu Jahal”. The statement of hatred had been
used “the grandchild of Abu Jahal”. Mazid (2012, 88-
89) had been defined that the hatred statement can be
supported by the meaning of (immoral and
irreligious): kaafir (), murtadd (), shaytaan
() and Iblīs (), such as in the comment (6).
The other hatred statement such in the comment (2),
kadzā
biin, had been written by zahiddeedar account.
Hate Speech in Arabic Newspaper Cyber Law - Case Study In Al-Jazeera.Net Daily Newspaper
617
The hatred in Arabic language can be supported by
the lexicons having the meaning about (double
faced), untrue, and dishonest: munaafiq (), firyah
(), kadhib (). The comment number (5) such as
sneering using the imperative verb /duq/ /duq/ “beat”
“hit” and “knock”. The data number (1) can be
classified as the provocation of violence because it
can made provocation for the readers of the
news/caption for doing violence, especially between
Yaman and Saudi people. The second group about the
provocation for hatred can be found in the data 2
below. We can look at from the news from the Al-
Jazeeraarabic in Instagram (August 22
nd
, 2017) about
the photo of the Leader of North Korea, Mr. Kim
Jong-Un as follow.
#
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in a filming
session with the secretaries of the youth organization
of the People's Army of his country # Al-Jazeera
The comments from some accounts in Al-Jazeera
Instagram, such as:
Eng_.awwad.73 @islam_74508
Data 2 had concluded about the provocation for
hatred toward the North Korea Leader, one of the
comment in this news had been provoked by the
hatred to Kim Jong-Un, by using the phrase /kilābul-
‘Ardhi/ “dogs of the earth”. Mazid (2012, 88-89) had
been described that the meaning of animals can be
represented as hatred to someone, the meaning of
animal such as: kilaab (), qiradah wa khanaaziir
( ), jurdhaan (rats) (), chumaar
(donkey) (). In this case, the hatred statement can
be found from the comment of the caption about Kim
Jong-Un. This comment was classified into the
second group (the provocation of hatred to someone).
The third group is about the provocation of
discrimination. It usually contained about the
provocation against the government (Myanmar).
These kinds of hate speech can be found in the data 3
below. From the photo in Instagram of
aljazeeraarabic (6 days ago, August 28, 2017).
..
# #
They burn the villages and kill their people...
Myanmar escalates against the Muslims of the
#Rohingyas and continued waves of displacement
towards #Bangladesh
The comments from some accounts for this photo,
such as:
(1) ali_miska
(2) hashemmsn
(3) oughzaz_lahcen
(4) weld_rdayfe
(5) ha93715
Data 3 represented the provocation of
discrimination towards the government of Myanmar
which had been escalates against the Muslims of the
#Rohingyas and continued waves of displacement
towards #Bangladesh. Myanmar was blamed as the
responsibility of the murder of Rohingyas people. It
makes the provocation of discrimination towards the
government of Myanmar as the main actor in the
murder of Rohingyas people. The sentence: They
burn the villages and kill their people has the negative
sense if it related to the word /muqtal/ ‘death’,
‘murder’, and ‘killing’. This news in aljazeera was
becoming the main element to provocation of
discrimination. It can be emphasized by looking at the
comments under this caption, such as: /ʻala dzulmah/
‘on the darkness’ in comment (1), Myanmar had been
blamed as getting the noble from America
government after burning Muslim, in comment (2),
/al-‘aib/ ‘blot’, ‘shame’, and ‘defectiveness’ such as
in comment (3). The comment (4) and (5) had blamed
the Budhist as kaafir (disbeliever in God). It means
that some comments in this case had been classified
as the provocation of discrimination.
Discourse analysis of hate speech in Arabic
language can be elaborated by the Halliday theory.
There are some headlines in the Arabic newspaper
that make the people being provoked with the violent,
hatred, and discrimination, especially in the themes
correlated with the religion and sectarian, such as in
the data 4 (was taken from aljazeeraarabic on August
27, 2017) below.
.. #
Dozens of Rohingya killers in a Myanmar army
campaign. The series of killings, torture and
displacement continues amidst international silence
(Data 4)
By looking data 4, it can be elaborated from three
basic elements of discourse based on Halliday, such
as: field, tenor, and mode. Field was correlated with
the time when the headline had been published. At
this time, there was a conflict between Myanmar and
Rohingya, and Dozens of Rohingya had been killed
by Myanmar. This headline can press out the reader
to get the provocation of hatred to Myanmar, because
Myanmar was doing murder to the Rohingya people.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
618
The tenor here involves the participants and their
relationship. The participant here is the Myanmar
government. Relating to the act of murder, this
headline, in the data 4, was addressed to many public
societies in Arab world. The last element is mode.
The text in the data 4 is headline news in Al-Jazeera
daily newspaper. The function of this headline was
persuasive, in which it tried to persuade the readers
(Arab World) to believe what had been written by Al-
Ahram daily newspaper.
3.2 The Social Legislation in Reducing
the Hate Speech in Arabic
Journalism
Brown (2015) had been pointed that there are ten
cluster of regullations that constrain uses of hate
speech, such as: (1) group defamation, (2) negative
stereotyping or stigmatization, (3) the expression of
hatred, (4) the incitement to hatred, (5) threats to
public order, (6) acts of mass cruelty, violence, or
genocide, (7) dignitary crimes or torts, (8) violations
of civil or human right, (9) expression oriented hate
crimes, and (10) time, place, and manner restrictions.
The following five test of speech for journalism in
context has been developed by EJN (Ethical
Journalism Network) advisers and is based upon
international standards. It highlights some questions
to be asked in the gathering, preparation and
dissemination of news and information that will help
journalist and editor place what is said and who is
saying it in an ethical context.
The position or status of the speaker; journalist
and editors must understand that just because
someone says something outrageous that does
not make it news. Journalist have to work
objectively fairly, they have to examine the
context in which it is said and the status and
reputation of who is saying it. A rabble-rousing
politician who is adept in manipulating an
audience should not get media coverage just
because they create a negative climate or make
unsubstantiated and controversial comments.
When people who are not public figures engage
in hate speech, it might be wise to ignore them
entirely. Freedom of speech is a right for
everyone and it is the job of journalist to ensure
that everyone has their say, but that does not
mean granting a license to lie, or spread
malicious gossip or to encourage hostility and
violence against any particular group.
The reach of the speech; journalist also have to
consider the frequency and extent of the
communication – is it a short momentary,
intemperate burst of invective and hatred, or is
it repeated deliberately and continuously?
The objectives of the speech; as part of reporting
process, journalists and editors have a special
responsibility to place the speech in its proper
context – to disclose and report what are the
objectives of the speaker. It is not our intention,
to deliberately expose or diminish people with
whom we disagree, but careful, ethical reporting
always help people better understand the context
in which speech is made.
The content and form of speech; journalist have
to judge whether the speech is provocative and
direct, in what form it is made, and the style in
which it is delivered. There’s a world of
difference between someone sounding off in the
café or the pub and speaking within a small
group and a speech made in a public place,
before an excitable audience. Journalist should
ask themselves: is the speech or expression
dangerous? Could it lead to prosecution under
the law? Will it incite violence and promote an
intensification of hatred towards others?
The economic, social and political climate;
journalist must take into account the public
atmosphere at the time the speech is being made.
The heat of an election campaign when political
groups are challenging each other and jostling
for public attention often provides the
background for inflammatory comments.
Journalists have to judge whether expression is
fair, fact-based, and reasonable in the
circumstances. It is important for journalists to
ask themselves: what is the impact of this on the
people immediately affected by the speech? Are
they able to absorb the speech in conditions of
relative security? Is this expression designed or
intended to make matters worse or better? Who
is affected negatively by the expression?
(Source: Turning the page of Hate Media: The
campaign for Tolerance in African Journalism:
Hate Speech: A Five Points Test for Journalists:
ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publica
tions/hate-speech).
4 CONCLUSIONS
This research had concluded two basic results, they
are: (1) the variant of hate speech in Arabic language
based on the units of language, case study in Al-
Jazeera.net, and (2) the social legislation in reducing
the hate speech in Arabic Journalism. The variant of
Hate Speech in Arabic Newspaper Cyber Law - Case Study In Al-Jazeera.Net Daily Newspaper
619
hate speech in Arabic can be divided into three basic
forms, such as (a) the provocation for violence
( ), (b) the provocation for hatred/
hostility ( ), and (c) the
provocation for discrimination ( ).
These forms had been supported by some
vocabularies for constructing hate speech in Arabic
discourse.
The dominant contents in Arabic hate speech had
been correlated with the religion and sectarian
themes. There were many reasons for doing hate
speech with the religion and sectarian themes. The
social legislation in reducing the hate speech in
Arabic Journalism must be done seriously by the
government and the social public, especially the
journalism, such as: (1) The position or status of the
speaker, (2) The reach of the speech, (3) The
objectives of the speech, (4) The content and form of
speech, (5) The economic, social and political
climate. Studying about hate speech is elaborating
about the moral ethic. Thus the public should care
with moral ethic to share the information. Sharing
information politely and having responsibility. In the
other hand, the government should make the strong
regulation to avoid the spreading of hate speech in
social public. Finally, the people can gain the
peacefull of life and say NO to Hate Speech, from
hate speech to heart speech.
REFERENCES
Anis, M. Y. 2017. "The Discourse Perspective of
Translation In Representing The Concept of Thā’at:
Case Study of The Moral Ethic Book Bidāyatul
Hidāyah." KARSA: Journal of Social and Islamic
Culture 25.1, pp. 232-252.
Alam, I., Roshan L. R., Faizia S. 2016. Free vs hate speech
on social media: the Indian perspective. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society,
Vol. 14 Iss: 4, pp.350 – 363.
Brown, A. 2015. Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical
Examination. Routledge: New York.
Gagliardone, I. et al. 2015. Countering On Line Hate
Speech: UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom. France:
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization.
Gelber, K., McNamara, L. 2016. Evidencing the harms of
hate speech. Social Identities, 22 (3), pp. 324-341.
Halliday, M., Hasan R. 1994. Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
ʻIzat, A. 2017. Khithābat At-Tachrīdh wa Churiyyati-
Taʻbīr: Al-Chudūd Al-Fāshilah. Cairo: Association for
Freedom of Thought and Expression.
Jubany, O., Roiha, M. 2015. Backgrounds, Experiences and
Responses to Online Hate Speech: A Comparative
Cross-Country Analysis. “PRISM – Preventing,
Redressing and Inhibiting hate speech in new Media”
(www.prismproject.eu).
Karjo, C. H. 2016. “Identifying Hate Speech in Tweets”.
Prosiding Seminar Tahunan Linguistik Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia (SETALI 2016): Bandung. Page:
81 – 85.
Lillian, D. L. 2007. “A thorn by any other name: sexiest
discourse as hate speech”. SAGE Publications: Los
Angeles. Volume: 18 (6). Page: 719 – 740.
Oksanen, A., James H., Emma H., Matti N., Pekka R. 2014.
Exposure to Online Hate among Young Social Media
Users, in M. Nicole Warehime (ed.) Soul of Society: A
Focus on the Lives of Children and Youth (Sociological
Studies of Children and Youth, Volume 18) Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp.253 - 273
Mazid, B. M. 2012. HateSpeak in Contemporary Arabic
Discourse. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Seglow, J. 2016. Hate Speech, Dignity and Self-Respect.
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19 (5), pp. 1103-
1116, volume 21, Issue 10, October 2016, Article
number 4, Pages 1799-1816
Zahrah, W. C. 2014. Innī Akrahuka: Khithābul-Karāhiyyah
wath-thā’fiyyah fi Iʻlāmir-Rabīʻ Al-ʻArabiy. Yordania:
Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
620
