Discursive constructions of hate-speech in news media comments in Finland: Liberal arguments for (il)liberal ends?

The distinction between hate-speech and free speech has become increasingly blurred in ever more polarized public discussions across Europe and beyond. Research indicates a hardening of the political discussion culture, largely due the rise of right-wing populism and the impact of social media. Concomitantly, a persisting public argument posits that freedom of speech has become endangered because of societal pressures to enforce ‘political correctness’ when discussing socially sensitive issues, such as immigration and LGBTI+ rights. A growing body of research has examined the hate-speech of political elites, typically discourses of far-right and right-wing populist politicians. However, little is known about how such talk is interpreted at the ‘grassroots level’, among the general population. Consequently, the present study explores how two cases of political hate-speech – one against asylum seekers and refugees, the other against the LGBTI+ community – were interpreted and negotiated in their comments by Finnish news media readers. Rather than departing from established definitions of hate-speech, we deploy a critical discursive psychological approach to examine vernacular constructions of hate-speech, the meanings that common people attach to these, and the social and political implications of such constructions. We evidence three discursive constructions of hate-speech in the analysed material: 1) hate-speech as a criminal offence; 2) hate-speech as an ambivalent, morally troublesome concept; and 3) denial of hate-speech. Our analysis illuminates the complex rhetorical construction of these discursive patterns. Further, we evince how the same rhetorical resources, especially the ‘liberal arguments’ of democracy, equality, and free speech, may also be deployed to service the opposite discursive functions, that is, to both confirm and deny hate-speech. Our results deepen the understanding about the complexity of the concept of hate-speech. They shed new light on the societal debates about the distinction between hate-speech and free speech.