Online Library

Exploring the cases of India and Ethiopia, this article develops the concept of “extreme speech” to critically analyze the cultures of vitriolic exchange on Internet-enabled media. While online abuse is largely understood as “hate speech,” we make two interventions to problematize the presuppositions of this widely invoked concept. First, extreme speech emphasizes the need to contextualize online debate with an attention to user practices and particular histories of speech cultures. Second, related to context, is the ambiguity of online vitriol, which defies a simple antonymous conception of hate speech versus acceptable speech. The article advances this analysis using the approach of “comparative practice,” which, we suggest, complicates the discourse of Internet “risk” increasingly invoked to legitimate online speech restrictions.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

White Supremacist groups have been an active participant in the digital world since its inception. However, as this technology evolved so too did the opportunities it provided to various iterations of far-right political groups and organizations. Though it would be incorrect to say that the evolving realities of the digital world are the central cause for far-right radicalization, it did provide the opportunity by which those individuals already holding extremist attitudes and beliefs to better consolidate those beliefs, while also embracing a community of like-minded individuals across the country and around the world. Attitudes and beliefs, which were perhaps less welcome in normal day-to-day experience could now be shared and validated in ways that furthered this process extremism and made the possibility of violence more likely.

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-lockdown movements sparked concerns about online extremism escalating into real-world violence. This study takes the Australian anti-lockdown movement to explore extremist discourse in Australia, as it contained several, overlapping and interacting extremisms. This study explores the labelling of these protests as extreme and examines the interplay between individuals, ideologies and discourse. Understanding the definitions and labels of extremism is fundamental for identifying and countering potential threats, as it distinguishes harmful rhetoric from extremist discourse and enables precise, informed interventions. A qualitative close reading revealed that while Australian anti-lockdown discourse contained crisis narratives and group antagonisms, it did not consistently meet the structural definition of extremism. This is partly due to the problem of coding violence, which lies in the lack of a clear comparative threshold to determine whether a discursive claim, rhetoric, or cultural reference signifies violence or violent intent. While not meeting the structural definition of extremism, there was evidence of specific structural attributes that logically precede extremism and the emergence of violence. By reconceptualizing extremism as a temporal dynamic, this research explores the relationship between discursive and violent extremism, shedding light on the complexities of extremist movements and their social impact.