Whose Words Hurt? Contextual Determinants of Offensive Speech
Manuel Almagro, Ivar R. Hannikainen, Neftalí Villanueva Fernández
Abstract
Tracing the boundaries of freedom of expression is a matter of wide societal and academic import-especially, as these boundaries encroach on the politics of inclusion. Yet, the elements that constitute offensive speech and determine its legal status remain poorly defined. In two studies, we examined how lay judges evaluate the offensiveness of apparently descriptive statements. Replicating prior work, we found that non-linguistic features (including speaker intent and outcomes on the audience) modulated the statements' meaning. The speaker's identity-and, in particular, their membership in the target group-independently influenced evaluations of offensive speech among conservatives and progressives alike. When asked to disclose their abstract principles, or jointly evaluate two contrastive cases, participants tended to deny the relevance of identity while primarily endorsing the intent principle. Taken together, our findings confirm that assessments of offensive speech are governed by contextual features, some of which are not introspectively deemed relevant.