Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Police activity
Reference:

Hate Speech in Internet Communication

Karimova Tat'yana Sergeevna

PhD in Pedagogy

Head of the Department, Department of Foreign Languages and Speech Culture, East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

664074, Russia, Irkutsk, Lermontov str., 110, 8(3952) 41-27-12

karimova_tanya@internet.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0692.2023.1.39281

EDN:

XOBHZL

Received:

27-11-2022


Published:

04-12-2022


Abstract: The article is devoted to the consideration of the qualifying signs of "hate speech" in the aspect of providing linguistic and forensic expertise in the field of Internet communication in order to ensure the legal and linguistic protection of national security, the constitutional order, public order, health and morality of the population. This concept – «hate speech» - is the subject of scientific discussions in various fields of science and practice: sociology, psychology, linguistics, theory of law, judicial practice. The article analyzes the positions of scientists in relation to the content of the concept of "hate speech". The classification of speech utterances containing signs of "hate speech" is given, which allows focusing the attention of experts - criminologists, conducting linguistic examination of statements in Internet communications, on soft forms of hate speech, the prevention of which is designed to ensure the prevention of crimes and offenses of an extremist orientation. The article also provides examples from the practice of conducting linguistic expertise, speech utterances in text files from an Internet resource.


Keywords:

speech act, hate, enmity, the language of enmity, internet communication, information threat, verbal aggression, social group, verbal extremism, linguistic examination of statements

This article is automatically translated.

In the realities of reality, Internet communication is a common means of everyday verbal online interaction. As a result, in modern society, according to E.I. Galyashina, "the manifestation of ethnic and religious intolerance, political correctness in the media, including the Internet, is increasing, which is expressed in the increasing expansion of criminal behavior, verbal aggression and other forms of functioning of the so-called "hate speech". The use of the "language of enmity" represents a real information threat to the ideological security of communication" [2]

The problem of the "language of enmity" was considered sociologically (R. Akifyeva, A.M. Verkhovsky, I. Dzyaloshinsky, D. V. Dubrovsky, O. V. Karpenko, G. Kozhevnikova, E. Y. Koltsova, E. Ponarin, I. V. Sledzevsky, E. E. Taratuta, A. Tolkacheva, F. I. Torchinsky, V. R. Filippov, E. O. Khabenskaya, L. L. Shpakovskaya), ethnological (V. K. Malkova, V. A. Tishkov) and psychological (A. D. and A. A. Leontiev, M. V. Kroz, A. R. Ratinov, N. A. Ratinova), and then in the linguistic aspect proper (A. I. Grishchenko, L. V. Dulichenko, O.S. Korobkova, N. A. Kupina, N. V. Muravyeva, N. A. Nikolina, S. V. Svirkovskaya, Yu.V. Shcherbinina, etc.) [7].

According to Y.V. Shcherbinina: "The "language of enmity" are words and expressions that subconsciously or explicitly program people for aggression, are its trigger mechanism.... The "language of enmity" serves to express hatred "for everything "different", unusual, different from the prevailing stereotypes of a particular social or cultural community of people" [15]

O.S. Korobkova considers the "language of enmity" through the prism of the opposition "friend ? foe" and defines "the language of enmity as a way of linguistic construction of models and practices of social inequality to express ethnic differences. Linguistic means help to label the "alien" [7].

E. P. Sokolova understands the language of enmity as "verbal discrimination and verbal aggression against ethnic and social groups. The language of enmity forms the image of a "stranger" [11].

According to E.D. Ponarin, "the language of enmity should be considered as "methods of linguistic construction of models and practices of social inequality" [12].

A.V. Gladilin notes that "the most important factor determining the essence of the "hate speech" is that it is based on such phenomena as social stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination, and is part of a broader and more complex phenomenon, which in the sciences studying communication is called communication based on prejudice and discrimination" [3].

According to E. Fromm, "the manifestation of the "language of enmity" is associated with the existential needs of a person, which in turn are determined by the specific (social) conditions of human existence" [14]/

As A.A. Denisova notes, "the language of enmity integrates the linguistic means of expressing the "sharply negative attitude" of opponents" — carriers of a different system of religious, national, cultural or more specific, subcultural values. This phenomenon can act as a form of manifestation of racism, xenophobia, ethnic hatred and intolerance, homophobia, as well as sexism" [5].

We consider it necessary to focus attention on the fact that the "language of enmity" includes "linguistic invective". In the latest philosophical dictionary, the concept of linguistic invective is defined as "a cultural phenomenon of social discrediting of a subject by means of a text addressed to him, as well as a stable language turnover perceived in a particular cultural tradition as offensive to its addressee." [4]

Thus, the "language of enmity" is a certain system of expressions, utterances that has developed in a person as a representative of a certain culture, possibly accompanied by photo or video materials that contain insults, humiliation or a call to violence, or other other actions aimed at undermining the well–being of a group of people united by one for they are a common feature that is not characteristic of others (people, groups).

Taking into account the above, we consider it necessary to analyze the linguistic means contained in the statement, which has the features of the "language of enmity". Any speech utterance is analyzed by lexico-grammatical, discursive (textual) units. Thus, Yu. V. Shcherbinina identifies the following means of language:

 

lexical

evaluative vocabulary, colloquialisms, jargon, invective and stylistically reduced, non-normalized vocabulary, etc.

word-forming neologisms, ethnopholisms (i.e. words that are borderline elements between invectives and reduced vocabulary, for example: chocks, khachiks, azers, etc.)

 

discursive

- provocative communication;

- irony as one of the effective ways of expressing the author's attitude to the subject of speech and author's assessment in the language of mass media, media communication;

- a metaphor consisting in a hidden comparison;

- overload of the text with negative information, the purpose of which is to impress the imagination of the newspaper reader;

- intertextuality (combines diverse relationships between texts, consisting in quoting predecessors) as a factor of aggressiveness of the text;

- phraseological units – turns of speech consisting of two or more words, having reproducibility, stability of composition and structure, as well as integral meaning; involved in the process of verbal communication, are a means of transmitting human thoughts.

 

It should be noted that the "language of enmity" is not so easy to define, since the boundary between offensive words and neutral ones is sometimes difficult to draw: over time, the word changes its stylistic coloring and what used to be neutral becomes offensive.

Yu.V. Shcherbinina highlights another feature of the "language of enmity" - it is its manipulative nature with the help of which "it is very easy to hide true intentions and pass one off as another" [15]

In linguo-criminology, there are classifications of the "language of enmity".

For example, A.M. Verkhovsky suggests classifying speech utterances that have signs of "the language of enmity" as follows [1].

 

Hard "hate speech"

- literal and open involvement in the conflict;

- propaganda of violence through slogans and slogans;

- literal and open calls for violence, discrimination

The average "language of enmity":

 

- public maintenance of historical precedents of violence and discrimination;

- publications and statements questioning generally accepted

there are cases of violence and discrimination in history;

- ratification of historical crimes committed by representatives of a certain ethnic group;

- an indication of the connection of any social group with Russian and/or

by foreign political and state structures in order to discredit it;

- ratification of the criminality of a particular ethnic group;

- a statement about the superiority of any ethnic group in material well-being, income, in government structures;

- censure for the negative impact on society of any social group;

- calls to eradicate any social group from society.

Soft "language of enmity":

- formation of a negative image of any ethnic group;

- a description of an ethnic group in a contemptuous form;

- an indication of the inferiority of any ethnic group;

- an indication of imperfections in the moral worldview of any ethnic group;

- mention of a social group in an offensive context;

- reproduction of xenophobic statements or the population of such

the type of publications without a corresponding comment defining the difference-

the difference between the opinion of the interviewee and the position of the author of the text.

 

As noted by D.V. Dubrovsky, O.V. Karpenko, "researchers from the European University divide texts into 2 categories: texts with a relatively soft "language of enmity", containing signs of division into "WE are a group" and "THEY are a group", and texts with a relatively hard "language of enmity", also containing motivational constructions who call for negative actions against "THEY are a group")" [6].

M. V. Krozom, N. A. Ratinova propose the following classification: conformity statement – the creation and development of a negative ethnic stereotype regarding the general idea of nationality, race, religion;

false attribution – the assertion of the commission of a crime by representatives of any ethnic group - "imaginary defense" – the initiation of exacting actions against a certain nation, race, religion." [8]

In the context of this study, let's consider the meaning of the words "hatred" and "enmity". In the Explanatory Dictionary of Ozhegov S.I., the following interpretations are given: "enmity is relations and actions imbued with hostility, hatred; hatred is a feeling of the strongest enmity, malice" [9]. According to M.A. Osadchy, "hatred is a psychological state, but enmity is activity or readiness for activity" [10], and "in legislation and legal literature these concepts are not differentiated; these two concepts are interrelated: in order to form enmity, it is necessary to generate hatred through information in a particular social group or A.V. Gladilin asserts that "the "language of hostility" is used against people belonging to other ethnic groups and races, to social groups: the disabled, the elderly, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, etc. A special target group is migrants, who may be objects of the language of hostility, not belonging to this applies to other ethnic groups and races" [3].

When conducting a linguistic and forensic examination of a speech utterance (text), the concept of a "social group" also occurs. In the Dictionary of the Russian language, "social" in most encyclopedic dictionaries is usually understood as "social, relating to the life of people and their relationships in society", while a group means "a set of people united by common interests, profession, activity, etc." [13].

Let's consider the description of cases from the practice of linguistic expertise, speech utterances in text files from an Internet resource.

The expert has questions:1.       

Are there statements in the submitted texts that negatively assess a person or group of persons united on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to any group?

2.        Are there motivational statements in the submitted texts calling for hostile actions of one group of persons against another group of persons, united on the basis of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion?

The following vocabulary and methodological literature was used during the examination:

1. Weller M. Psychology of energy evolutionism.

2. Efremova T.F. Modern explanatory dictionary. Vol. 1-3 – M., 2006.

3.        Kveselevich D.I. Explanatory dictionary of profanity of the Russian language. – M., 2003.

4.        Krysin L.P. Explanatory dictionary of foreign words. – M., 2000 S.A.

5.        Kuznetsov S.A. Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language – St. Petersburg, Norint., 2007.

6.        Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T. G. Dictionary of Russian swearing: matizms, obscenisms, euphemisms. - St. Petersburg, 2003

7.        Ushakov D.N. Explanatory Dictionary of the modern Russian language. – M., 2014.

Establishment of research objects and their descriptionThe presented texts are posted on the Internet user's page under the nickname "AAA" by means of a repost.

The texts are interpersonal, have signs of publicity, are recorded using the means of the Russian language, have semantic, logical, formal-grammatical connectedness of language units, are accessible for semantic understanding. Thus, they are suitable for conducting linguistic research.The analysis of the linguistic characteristics of the disputed texts (hereinafter referred to as ST) showed the following:

ST 1 is a polycode text of an Internet resource, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a statement: "Vile smelly gypsy e.....", the nonverbal part is presented in the form of an image of a smiling boy.

ST 2 is a polycode text of an Internet resource, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a statement: "A Jew is like a pig: nothing hurts, but everything groans (a Russian proverb)," the nonverbal part is presented in the form of an image of Jews.

ST 3 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Pogrom", beginning with the words: "Everything with Jews is very simple..." and ending with the words: "... And arrange a pogrom," the nonverbal component depicts a young man with a girl performing actions resembling a beating, aimed at a man whose external signs can determine whether he belongs to Jews, in the background there is a burning synagogue, around which there are gallows.

ARTICLE 4 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Tajik", which begins with the words: "Here is a bad and dirty Tajik..." and ends with the words: "... We hate their faces!...well, tolerasts too ...", the non-verbal part of which depicts a man sweeping up garbage, to his left is a shaved man in tattoos, presumably with an axe in his right hand and a clenched fist of his left hand.

ST 5 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Chock", which begins with the words: "Black chock is an Islamist", "black, dirty and stupid", "he wipes his ass with sand", "he does not know letters and numbers"; ends with the words: ... They will also come after him."

ARTICLE 6 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", which begins with the words: "Her shawl is like a hedgehog prickly ..." and ends with the words: "... An ugly black farce", the non-verbal part of which depicts a woman in a wide skirt, with gold teeth, in a red scarf, in her belt she has a dagger, in her hand she holds a bag with the inscription "heroin", with three children who look out from behind her back.

Taking into account the specifics of the actualization of the lexical, syntactic-semantic, stylistic, formal-logical levels of the text, the methods of analysis of the provided materials are selected: conceptual, component, lexical-semantic analysis, semantic-syntactic analysis, functional-stylistic analysis, linguistic-stylistic analysis, text authorization method.

The following terms and definitions are used in the process of research and execution of the conclusion:

Addressee – the person to whom the speech (text) belongs, the sender of the speech message.

The addressee is a real or imaginary person to whom the speech (text) is addressed, the recipient of the speech message. 

An utterance is a unit of communication that has semantic integrity and can be perceived by the listener (addressee) in these communication conditions.

A group as an object of evaluation is a set of persons, each of which has stable (unrelated to the current state) distinctive features that unite the members of the group and are the evaluation criterion.

Context is an oral or written speech that has semantic completeness, allowing to clarify the meaning and meaning of individual fragments (words, expressions or text fragments) that make up it.

Nickname is a network name, an alias of an Internet user.

A race is a group of humanity united by a common origin and a common hereditary physical characteristics: skin and hair color, eye shape, skull shape, etc. The basis of everyday ideas about race is the knowledge of externally observable differences between people (in naive perception, races are best differentiated: by skin color - yellow, black, white, red; by eye section).

Nationality belonging to a nation.

A nation is a historically established stable ethnic community of people based on a common language, territory, economic life, as well as on the basis of a voluntary and naturally accepted national culture specific only for a given ethnic group and a national interest formed on its basis.

Origin – belonging by birth to some class, class, nationality, locality.   

Evaluation (evaluation category) is a set of multi–level units united by evaluation semantics and expressing a positive or negative attitude of the author to the content of speech. The evaluation is characterized by a special structure – a modal frame, which is superimposed on the utterance and does not coincide with its logical-semantic or syntactic construction. The elements of the evaluative model framework are the subject and the object connected by the evaluative predicate.

The subject of assessment is the person or society from whose point of view the assessment is given; the object of assessment is the person, object, event or state of things to which the assessment relates.

Solution of question No. 1. When solving question No. 1, we use the structural components of the assessment: the subject of the assessment is the person or society from whose point of view the assessment is given; the object of the assessment is the person, object, event or state of things to which the assessment relates.

The ST1-ST6 presented for analysis has an informative and evaluative orientation. By type of addressing – interpersonal, with signs of publicity (the page is available for viewing by an unlimited number of Internet users).

In article 1, a statement was revealed in which a person designated as a "gypsy" is negatively assessed: "Vile smelly gypsy fuck......."

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a person designated as a "gypsy".

Vile – 1. disgusting; disgusting, nasty. 2. Vile, dishonest, vile [2].

Smelly - razg.-snizh. Bad, unpleasant smelling; fetid [2].

Fucking taboo! The same as the fuck [3].

Fucking taboo! Lustful, loving to copulate. [3].

The above lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of a person designated as a "gypsy". The use of words as taboo, marked "colloquially-reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

Thus, in ST1 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of a person designated as a "gypsy" is displayed.

In Article 6, in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Gypsies" are negatively assessed: "And she herself is smelly" "rottooth and mustache" "what kind of beast is this, guys? Right! This is a gypsy" "A black-haired gypsy" "takes money from people."

During the study of the material , the following structural components of the assessment were identified:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX".

- the object of evaluation is a group of persons "gypsies".

Smelly – smelly - razg.-snizh. Bad, unpleasant smelling; fetid [2].

Rotten tooth – rotten teeth – rotten - Spoiled, destroyed by decay, decay; rotting, decomposing [2].

A tooth is a bone formation that serves mainly for grabbing, biting and chewing food [2].

Mustache – mustachioed - the one who has a mustache (about a person or an animal) [2].

Beast - I is a wild – usually predatory – animal.

II M. 1. razg.-snizh. an extremely cruel, heartless, rude man.

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

A gypsy woman is a representative of a nationality of Indian origin, who usually lives in nomadic and semi–nomadic groups in different countries of the world [2].

The black-ass, too, that the black-ass in the meaning. sushch. m vulg., neglect. The nickname of the Caucasians [3].

Takes away – take away - steal, steal something [2].

In Article 6, the lexemes "gypsy", "tabor", "them", "them" indicate belonging to a group of persons.

The above lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of the group of persons "Gypsies". Words marked "colloquially reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

The author points out that "gypsies" are not people, but wild animals, and also focuses on the lifestyle of "taking money away from people" and appearance.

Thus, in Article 6 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of the group of persons "Gypsies", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin, is displayed.

In Article 2, "A Jew is like a pig: nothing hurts, but everything groans (a Russian proverb)", the following structural components of the assessment were identified during the study of the material:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of persons "Jews".

In CT2, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Jews" are negatively assessed:

Jew - razg.-snizh. 1. The name of the Jew (usually with a touch of disdain).  2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

Pig -1. razg. dirty, untidy person; slob.

2.razg.; peren. An ignorant, uncultured person with low habits [2].

 Zhidovye - razg.-snizh. the same as the Jew [3].

Fuck... i-t a boo! The same as fucking [3].

Fucking taboo! Lustful, loving to copulate [3].

Based on the context (nonverbal component), it can be assumed that it is not a person who is evaluated, but a group of persons, because the figure accompanying this text depicts people with the same external signs.

The above-mentioned lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of the group of persons "Jews", also having the mark "colloquially reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

Thus, in Article 2 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of a group of persons "Jews" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin is revealed.

VST 3 "Everything with zhydami is very simple: zhyd raw materials for the Holocaust!" during the study of the material, the following structural components of the assessment were identified:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of people "zhydy".

In article 3, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "zhyds" are negatively assessed: "Everything with zhyds is very simple: zhyd raw materials for the Holocaust!": Zhyd - zhid - razg.-snizh.

1. The name of the Jew (usually with a touch of disdain).

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

Raw material is a material intended for further industrial processing and manufacturing of the finished product [2].

The Holocaust is the mass destruction of people by burning in special furnaces (usually in relation to prisoners, more often to persons of Jewish nationality, on the territory of Eastern European states during World War II); burnt offering [2].

The intentional use of "zhy" instead of "zhi", which are not normative use according to the rules of the Russian language, but is the author's position.

The addressee points out the identity of the concepts of "zhyd" and "raw materials" and considers Jews not people, but material that will be burned in a special furnace as a result.

Thus, in ST3 there is a statement in which there is a negative assessment of a group of people "zhydy", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin."

In Article 4, "We hate their faces", "Here is a bad and dirty Tajik", the following structural components of the assessment were identified during the study of the material:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of "Tajiks".

In CT4, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Tajiks" are negatively assessed:

Tajik-Tajiks – 1. The people who make up the main population of Tajikistan [2].

Hateful – hateful – causing hatred, malice, disgust. [2]

Erysipelas-erysipelas – 1. razg.-snizh. an ugly, unpleasant person's face. ott. a person with such a face. 2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

The addressee indicates that he hates the group of persons "Tajiks", it causes disgust.

Thus, in CT4, a negative assessment of the group of persons "Tajiks" was revealed on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

In ST5, it is a poem in which statements containing a negative assessment of representatives of the "chocks" group of persons were revealed: "A black chock is an Islamist", "black, dirty and stupid", "he wipes his ass with sand", "he does not know letters and numbers".

Chock – 1. The nickname of Caucasians and residents of Central Asia.

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

Black – dirty, soiled, soiled [7].

Islamist – Islamists are those who profess Islam [2].

Islam is one of the most widespread monotheistic religions of the world, which originated in Arabia in the VII century, has spread in the Near and Middle East, in some countries of the Far East, Southeast Asia, Africa and has as its main tenets the worship of the one God - Allah and the recognition of the Prophet Muhammad as his messenger [2].

Dirty – soiled, smeared; not clean, not neat (about a person) [2].

Stupid - mentally limited, retarded in development (about a person) [2].

The use of the lexeme "chock" as abusive and censorious reinforces the negative meaning. 

The author of the poem describes a group of people "chocks" as uneducated, mentally retarded, with an untidy appearance nationality.

Thus, in ST5 there are statements in which a negative assessment of a group of people "chocks" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin is revealed.

Solution of question No. 2. When solving question No. 2, we use the structural components of the assessment:

Addressee – the person to whom the speech (text) belongs, the sender of the speech message.

The addressee is a real or imaginary person to whom the speech (text) is addressed, the recipient of the speech message. 

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of ST3 for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed: ST3 "Everything is very simple with zhydami: zhyd is the raw material for the Holocaust! So, brother, take a crowbar and arrange a pogrom!"

addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity:

The communicative construction of the motivation ST3 is expressed using the imperative form of the verb 2 persons of the imperative mood singular: (take, arrange). Take-take – Grab, grab with your hand or hands [2].

Arrange-arrange – to do, to do, being a participant in something [6].

A crowbar is a large, heavy, pointed metal rod at one end, with which something solid is broken or broken [2].

Pogrom - Ruin, devastation, rout [5].

The addressee refers himself to the group of persons "not zhyds", opposed to the group of persons "zhyds", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

The purpose of the motivation is to ruin, devastate, smash "zhydov" with a heavy pointed metal rod.

Thus, in ST3, a statement of a motivational nature was revealed, calling for hostile actions of a group of persons "not Jews" in relation to a group of persons "Zhids" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of ST5 "the black chock is an Islamist, beat him rather, a fascist" for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed:

 addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity,

 - addressee is an Internet user under the nickname "XXX".

- the addressee is a generalized image of the group of persons "fascists".  

The communicative construction of the call ST5 is expressed using the imperative form of the verb 2 persons of the imperative mood singular: (bey).· "the black chock is an Islamist, beat him quickly, a fascist"

Beat-beat - Beat; beat [2].

Fascist – 1. An adherent of fascism.

                 2. Extremely angry, aggressive person.

                 3. It is used as a censorious or abusive word [2].

Fascism is the ideology and practice of extremely militant chauvinism, racism and anti–humanism, extremely reactionary political currents based on this ideology, an open terrorist dictatorship and a repressive regime aimed at suppressing progressive social movements and at the destruction of democracy, at the partial destruction or enslavement of the defeated peoples left alive; the ideology of superiority over all other nations, elevated to the rank of state and international politics [4].

The purpose of the motivation is to strike, beat up a group of "chocks".

Thus, in ST5, a statement of a motivational nature was revealed, calling for hostile actions of a group of persons "fascists" in relation to a group of persons "chocks", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of Article 6, in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed:

- addressee is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX".

- the addressee is depersonalized, all Internet users.  

ARTICLE 6 is addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity.

The communicative construction of the call ST6 is expressed using a modal word with the semantics of a must: (it is necessary)+ burn: "it is necessary to burn their camp with fire, an ugly black farce"

To burn - to destroy with fire, to betray to fire, to expose to the action of fire [2].

A camp is a group of Gypsy families roaming together [2].

Ugly - disgusting; bad, disgusting, nasty, vile [2].

A booth is a light construction used for temporary housing, trade, etc. [2].

The purpose of the motivation is to burn, to destroy with fire a group of persons "Gypsies".

Thus, Article 6 revealed a statement on the page of an Internet user under the nickname "XXXX", who does not consider himself to be a group of persons "Gypsies", of a motivational nature in relation to a group of persons "Gypsies", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

Based on the results of the examination, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. In ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6, statements were revealed in which groups of persons "Gypsies", "chocks", "Jews", "black-assed", "Tajiks", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin, are negatively assessed. Statements in which a person or a group of persons united on the grounds of their attitude to religion or belonging to any group are negatively assessed were not revealed.

2. In ST3, ST5, ST6, statements of a motivational nature were revealed, calling for hostile actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

Thus, the "language of enmity", as noted by Yu.V. Shcherbinina, "penetrated into the public sphere, he is not looking for a real enemy – he actively invents it, creates it from the immediate environment by the very name ..." [15]. Another danger of the "language of hostility" is connected with the fact that in the conditions of globalization of modern society, the criteria for its objective assessment are blurred: "cases of extremism or discrimination are often assessed by the ordinary consciousness as attempts to "defend independence", "protect national dignity", "strengthen traditions… The language of enmity "imperceptibly becomes the universal language of modern communication, rapidly rises from the level of everyday communication to the level of social generalizations ..., has no borders and surroundings, because it covers the entire speech space, captures all spheres of communication."

The author sees the reason in the fact that "in the era of globalization, the boundaries of ethnic groups and territories are blurred, identities are lost, differences are leveled."

It should also be noted that "the concept of the language of enmity allows us to shift the focus of attention of legal scholars, primarily criminologists, from the extreme criminalized part of the language of enmity – verbal extremism, to soft forms of the language of enmity – to propagandistic and discriminatory-xenophobic discourse. The prevention of the latter should ensure the prevention of crimes and offenses of extremist and terrorist orientation, which, of course, is part of the tasks of information and ideological security of Internet communication" [2].

 

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Hate speech in Internet communication". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to the use of the language "... hostility in Internet communication". The author has chosen a special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of "legal and linguistic provision of information (ideological) security", information law and its effect on police activity, while the author notes that "In the realities of reality, Internet communication is a common means of everyday verbal online interaction." The article studies in a very limited aspect of the National Legislation of Russia, "the practice of conducting linguistic expertise of speech utterances in text files from an Internet resource" relevant to the purpose of the study. A certain amount of scientific literature on the stated issues is also studied and summarized (only 2 titles are relevant to the law), analysis and discussion with these opposing authors are present. However, there are other authors who have also studied this problem and write about it (Komalova L.R., Zayats I.V., Koval E.A., etc.). But for some reason, not a word about them. At the same time, the author notes: "... "hate speech" is a certain system of expressions, utterances that has developed in a person as a representative of a certain culture, possibly accompanied by photo or video materials that contain insults, humiliation or a call to violence, or other other actions aimed at undermining the well–being of any group of people united by one for them a common feature that is not typical for others (people, groups)." Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work: "... we consider it necessary to analyze the linguistic means contained in a statement that has the features of a "hate speech". Any speech utterance is analyzed according to lexico-grammatical, discursive (textual) units", "In linguocriminalism there are classifications of the "language of hostility"." They can be designated as consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. The author uses a set of general scientific (including "lexico-grammatical"), special legal methods of cognition. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to generalize some approaches to the proposed topic and partially influenced the author's conclusions. The most important role was played by special legal methods ("linguocriminalistic"). In particular, the author did not apply a formal legal method that would allow for the analysis and interpretation of the norms of the current NPA and judicial practice of the Russian Federation. Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is adequate to the purpose of the article, allows you to study some aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is important in Russia, from a legal point of view, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes, "It should be noted that the "language of hostility" is not so easy to determine, since it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between offensive words and neutral ones: over time, the word changes its stylistic coloring and the fact that it used to be neutral, it becomes offensive." And in fact, an analysis of the opponents' work should follow here, and it follows and the author shows the ability to master the material. Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only to be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is questionable. It is not expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, the following: "... statements of a motivational nature have been identified, calling for hostile actions by one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin." As can be seen, these and other "theoretical" conclusions cannot be used in further scientific research. Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of limited interest to the scientific community. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Police Activity", as it is devoted to the use of the language "... hostility in Internet communication". The article contains analytics on the scientific works of opponents in a limited number, so the author notes that a question close to this topic has already been raised and the author uses some of their materials, discusses with opponents. The content of the article corresponds to the title, since the author considered the stated problems and achieved the goal of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as not fully developed. The subject, objectives, methodology, and research results follow directly from the text of the article, but there is no scientific novelty. The design of the work meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature presented and used should be highly appreciated. However, the presence of additional modern scientific legal literature and NPA would show even greater validity of the author's conclusions. The works of these authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of relative sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of many aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author has analyzed the current state of the problem under study. The author describes the opponents' different points of view on the problem, argues for a more correct position in his opinion, based on the work of individual opponents, and offers solutions to individual problems. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, concrete "... it should be noted that "the concept of the language of hostility allows us to shift the focus of attention of legal scholars, primarily criminologists, from the extreme criminalized part of the language of hostility – verbal extremism, to soft forms of the language of hostility – to propagandistic and discriminatory-xenophobic discourse." The article in this form may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues stated in the article. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, I recommend "publishing" taking into account the comments.