An extreme example of the proliferation of hate speech was demonstrated by media executives in Rwanda in 1994. The media’s actions in Rwanda illustrate the power of words spoken through the media and the devastating consequences.
The BBC reported that “hate media” contributed to the genocide in which approximately will always work. Now you can send it in 800,000 were killed in 1994. (Impact of Hate Media in Rwanda, December 3, 2003). Ally Mugenzi, a BBC reporter stationed in Rwanda at that time, attested to the detrimental influence of the media. In this instance, the media did not just report other’s rhetoric. In Rwanda, the media actively participated in the dissemination of hate speech, hence the term “hate media.”
The principal perpetrator was the privately owned Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (“RTLM”). RTLM actually gave the names of individuals who should be killed and provided details of how to find the individuals. Mugenzi reported the activities to the BBC while he was in Rwanda. Although questioned by the radio station, he escaped punishment.
The activities of the media did not go without consequence. At least two RTLM executives were prosecuted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. One executive was sentenced to life in prison, and the other received a 35-year sentence. The media executives were not the only ones punished. As a result of the actions of the media, specifically, RTLM, others were punished by the subsequent absolute control of the media by the government. The proliferation of hate speech through the media and the resulting massive loss of life led to excessive government control of the media in Rwanda.
Without a doubt, RTLM disseminated hate speech. Consider the speech in light of the Ethical Journalism Networks Five-Point Test. Point One: The speech was dangerous. Providing information that encourages killing incites violence and intensifies the hatred. Point Two: Given the economic and political climate in Rwanda at that time, significantly exacerbated the intensity and the danger of the speech. Point Three: Undoubtedly, the broadcasters and publishers were “indiscriminate megaphones.” Although the source of any statements is not identified, RTLM freely disseminated the statements and directives. Point Four: RTLM was well aware, that the remarks were repeatedly broadcast. RTLM made the repeated publication possible. The explicit purpose was to further incite violence. Point Five: In this instance, the intent was obvious- death and destruction.
The example from Rwanda also meets each of the five factors set forth under the Five-Point Dangerous Speech Test as set forth by the Dangerous Speech Project. (1) As previously noted, it is not clear that the speech was directly attributable to an individual, such as General Kagame. However, as a result of the broadcast, the violence and genocide escalated. It is, therefore, logical to presume individuals who heard the speech were influenced by the speaker. (2) Rwanda was in the midst of a violent rebellion and massive genocide. There can be little doubt that the audience had both fear and grievances which would be exacerbated as a result of the speech. (3) The speech, particularly instructions to kill can only be understood as a call to violence. (4) There was an existing conflict which would only be exacerbated by the speech. (5) The predominance of RTLM in that market at that time was influential enough to have a significant and devastating impact.
We must not dismiss the impact of words spoken through the media. Consider for a moment, the following words from a news broadcast, “We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us.” “You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.Were these words hate Speech? Yes. Were these words dangerous Speech? Yes. Were these words spoken on a recording from RTLM in Rwanda in 1994? No. These words were broadcast on an American News Station in January 2015 (Jeanine Pirro on Justice).
Discussion: Religion 300 