Distinguishing forms of speech
Key Points
Hate Speech must contain three components (See Special Considerations for Hate Speech for further information):
- Any kind of communication (whether in the form of speech, writing or behaviour).
- Attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language.
- Makes reference to an identity factor (these can include migrant or refugee status, amongst other identity characteristics.)
Determining between misinformation, disinformation and malinformation uses a two-part test:
- Is the information true?
- Is the sharer of the information intended to cause harm to the recipient?
Based on this two-part test, a determination may be able to be made:
- Misinformation is false information shared without the intent to cause harm.
- Disinformation is false information shared with the intent to cause harm.
- Malinformation is true information shared with the intent to cause harm.
In practice, the concepts of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and hate speech are overlapping and often difficult to distinguish. For example, some forms of disinformation and propaganda may amount to incitement to violence, hostility, discrimination and war crimes (in situations of armed conflict). While intent and veracity are commonly understood as the defining variables of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, ascertaining the intent of the propagator of information may be challenging, while veracity in and of itself does not signify the absence of harm. For example, a rumour (misinformation) may ultimately be just as harmful as a targeted disinformation campaign.
RESOURCE
DPO/OSAPG, Speech Assessment Tool
This speech assessment tool was designed as part of a joint DPO/OSAPG report A Conceptual Analysis of the Overlaps and Differences between Hate Speech, Misinformation and Disinformation to help practitioners identify whether an example of speech should be defined as hate speech, misinformation or disinformation. Some of the categories may also appear in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation. Each incident needs to be individually evaluated based on the various criteria including inter alia, the Rabat threshold test.
The United Nations recently undertook a study to examine the interlinkages and relationship between misinformation, and disinformation and hate speech, and where these related but distinct phenomena converge and diverge at both the conceptual and operational levels.
Instances of hate speech, misinformation, or disinformation often defy clear categorization. They seldom align precisely with legal definitions, and there’s a tendency to group them under a broader umbrella, emphasizing the harm rather than thoroughly examining the content or the individuals responsible for creating or sharing it. Recognizing this reality, UNHCR nevertheless suggests that the categories of speech described here should be treated as distinct types.
Although there are similarities in how these types of speech manifest, a closer examination of their various components—considering legal and historical contexts—underscores the need to view them as separate phenomena. Different types of speech may be subject to varying legal and policy frameworks, impact different audiences, result in distinct harms, and necessitate diverse responses.
Furthermore, many of the concepts related to information risks are contingent on the broader social, political and historical context, open to interpretation and likely to evolve as new information harms and responses emerge. For this reason, UNHCR and humanitarian staff should apprise themselves of the cultural and linguistic differences there may be when it comes to discussing and addressing misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, malinformation, etc. While definitions and consistency are key to developing coherent and effective responses, where possible priority should be given to using terminology that is easily accessible given contextual factors. For example, in some contexts the term “fake news” may be a better way to approach the subject rather than using disinformation or “misinformation. This flexibility in terminology may also be necessary for fundraising efforts as a number of donors have adopted differing standards.