HATE SPEECH AND ITS DIRECT INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL STRATIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS

Certain individuals or groups are increasingly using hate speech to exert strong negative direct influence and violence against other individuals or groups due to their different ethnicity, language, citizenship, social origin, religion or religious belief, other types of beliefs, education, political affiliation, mental or physical disability, age, family or marital status, property status and health condition.

The Republic of Macedonia has not yet registered an official court case for hate speech under our legislation, due to the complexity of determining the notion of hate speech and the distinction between freedom of expression and hate speech. Some foreign experts who monitor the situation with the media appeal to journalists to differentiate between freedom of expression and hate speech, since they believe that Macedonia, as a signatory country of the European Convention on Human Rights, can apply judicial and legal remedies for this global issue. The reason for the inadequate sanctioning is the apparent abuse of freedom of expression through journalist articles or statements in the public media, speeches and statements by representatives of political parties that encourage or defend violence, nationalist and extremist outbursts at sports events, flag desecration, upset religious sentiments at carnivals and other cultural manifestations, as well as the environment as an exogenous factor for the occurrence of this crime. This paper will analyze only a few of the many examples of open use of hate speech in the media, which have been randomly selected.

The paper situates hate speech within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), especially Article 10 on freedom of expression and its limits, and draws on positions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR case law) regarding hate speech. It references Council of Europe instruments and EU media regulation, including Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 (media refraining from transmitting hate speech) and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which was transposed into the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services of the Republic of Macedonia (2013). It surveys Macedonian domestic legislation relevant to hate speech: Criminal Code Articles 144, 319, 394(d), and 417; the Law on Prevention and Protection against Discrimination (broad, open list of protected characteristics); and regulatory practice of the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services. The review also engages academic and policy literature on protected characteristics and the conceptualization of hate speech (e.g., works by Vlado Kambovski and Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska; Elena Mihajlova; OSCE/ODIHR guidance; Frederick Lawrence). It discusses how protected characteristics commonly include race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, citizenship, language, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, while characteristics like political affiliation or property status are typically excluded from hate speech protection though relevant to anti-discrimination frameworks. External regulators’ guidelines (e.g., Ofcom) and cooperation models are noted as comparative references.

Qualitative legal-policy analysis combining: (1) illustrative case examples of hate speech drawn from Macedonian media and social networks (randomly selected incidents, statements by public figures, and regulatory findings); (2) examination of domestic legal provisions (Criminal Code, Law on Prevention and Protection against Discrimination, Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services) and their application; (3) review of international and European standards (ECHR, Council of Europe recommendations, EU AVMS Directive) and relevant case-law principles; and (4) synthesis of secondary data and stakeholder perspectives (reports by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, statements by media ethics bodies, academics, and practitioners). The approach aims to assess the social impact of hate speech on stratification/divisions and identify gaps in enforcement and prevention.

• Hate speech exerts a strong, direct negative influence on social stratification/divisions, undermining individual dignity, social relations, and interethnic cohesion, and can escalate to violence and even war.
• Media can amplify hate speech’s effects by spreading polarizing narratives; responsibility is heightened when journalists or editors knowingly propagate or reinforce such content.
• Regulatory and legal frameworks exist but are weakly enforced in Macedonia: despite being an ECHR signatory, there have been no official court cases for hate speech; definitions and distinctions from protected expression are complex, leading to under-sanctioning.
• Documented cases indicate widespread occurrence: the Helsinki Committee’s platform recorded 300+ hate speech cases over four years, largely on ethnic, political, or sexual orientation grounds; many occur on social networks, portals, traditional media, and in political speech.
• 2016 hate-crime data (Helsinki Committee): 32 bodily injuries (including serious), 29 violence incidents, 28 property damage, 27 endangering safety, 10 fights, 9 thefts (including armed); 24 incidents of incitement of hatred/strife/intolerance; 1 incident of racial discrimination; 70% of 61 recorded incidents (43) occurred in Skopje area, with additional incidents across other cities.
• Target and protected groups span race, ethnicity, religion, nationality/citizenship, language, sex/gender, sexual orientation, disability, and class/social background; political affiliation and property status are generally not protected characteristics for hate speech (though relevant to discrimination).
• Identified consequences include psychological trauma and loss of self-esteem for victims; terror and insecurity within targeted groups; spillovers to other vulnerable groups; heightened social disharmony and conflict; and potential progression to terrorism or mass violence.
• Structural impunity persists: police lack separate records; criminal charges rarely emphasize hate motives; authorities often avoid or downgrade clear Article 319 cases; coordination between media regulators and anti-discrimination bodies requires strengthening.
• Prevention requires multi-stakeholder actions across civil society, political parties, media, education, and culture, and clearer editorial standards to avoid disseminating incitement.

The findings demonstrate that hate speech, particularly when propagated through influential media and political discourse, intensifies social stratification by stigmatizing and dehumanizing groups defined by fundamental identity characteristics. This addresses the paper’s core hypothesis that hate speech directly damages social cohesion and individual dignity and can catalyze intergroup conflict. The legal review reveals a discrepancy between formal norms and practical enforcement in Macedonia: although domestic laws and European standards provide a basis to limit incitement to hatred, vague statutory formulations and weak institutional practices foster impunity. The empirical snapshots (media incidents, regulatory reports, and stakeholder testimonies) illustrate how unaddressed hate speech normalizes discrimination, lowers societal sensitivity to stigmatization, and increases the risk of hate crimes. Strengthening editorial accountability, clarifying protected characteristics within hate speech regulation, and ensuring coordinated enforcement (media regulator, anti-discrimination commission, prosecutors) are critical for mitigating harm. Embedding ECHR standards and ECtHR case-law balancing tests in domestic practice would help distinguish protected expression from unlawful incitement while safeguarding democratic discourse. Ultimately, targeted prevention combined with credible sanctions can reduce polarization and protect the “social fabric.”

Hate speech has a profound, negative direct impact on the social division of individuals and groups in Macedonia, eroding morality, interpersonal relations, and interethnic stability, and threatening democratic institutions. Current practice lacks a consistent approach to identifying and prosecuting hate acts: there are no distinct police records, hate motives are seldom emphasized, and clear cases under Article 319 are often avoided or downgraded. Specific measures are needed to address root causes, improve institutional capacity, and ensure effective functioning of regulatory and judicial bodies. The paper calls for: introducing clearer and more comprehensive penal norms that precisely define punishable hate speech; treating hate motives as aggravating circumstances; separating hate-based acts as qualified forms with stricter penalties; and fostering close cooperation between the media regulator and anti-discrimination authorities. Prevention should be multi-sectoral, promoting tolerance, dialogue, and understanding, alongside consistent application of ECtHR standards. These directions outline practical policy and legal reforms to counteract hate speech’s divisive social effects.

• The paper analyzes only a few, randomly selected media examples, which may not represent the full spectrum of hate speech incidents.
• Reliance on secondary data and reports (e.g., Helsinki Committee, regulator findings) rather than systematic primary data collection limits generalizability.
• Institutional data gaps in Macedonia (no separate police records; scarce official court cases; inconsistent classification of Article 319 offenses) constrain comprehensive measurement and trend analysis.