Following on the evidence that hate speech and the threats posed by it and its recurrence has not received enough attention, the authors have conducted a study of hate speech in social media, focusing in particular on insults that may constitute criminal speech and on the mindset of those who produce such content.
Using a qualitative approach, the study analyzes a defamation case based on the final decision published on the Supreme Court website. Pragmatic analysis is applied to interpret the intentions underlying the offender’s speech.
The findings identify several forms of insults, including accusations, curses, ridicule, and combinations of accusations and curses. These forms involve violations of pragmatic maxims, namely the maxims of quality, wisdom, and agreement.
From a legal perspective, such speech can be prosecuted if it is done intentionally, contains accusations, is disseminated to the public, contains swear words, and defames the victim.
Concluding results point to the need for greater awareness among social media users of the risks and consequences of insulting speech, emphasizing the importance of literacy around insult and defamation cases.
Learn more about this study here: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1504.10
Reference
Arianto, A. K., Santosa, R., & Yustanto, H. (2025). Improving Public Literacy in Hate Speech Cases on Social Media as an Effort to Mitigate Legal and Social Impacts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(4), 1120–1129