This article presents the main findings of a study focusing on two elements concerning the fight against the circulation of hate speech on the Web: 1) the challenge posed by the need to conceptualize the notion of counter-discourse 2) the experimentation of humour as a strategic tool to combat the circulation of hate speech on the Internet and its negative effects on online social attitudes. As a first step, we conducted eleven semi-structured interviews with six academic researchers and five experts in the field, in order to understand how the common aspects of the counter-discourse concept found in the literature can be interpreted and mobilized in practice. In doing so, we analyzed their responses in order to identify the types of counter-discourse we felt were most effective in combating hate speech, and to determine whether humour was a relevant strategy. Secondly, we conducted an online experiment with two short videos, one conveying counter-speech in a humorous form, the other in a more serious manner. In some respects, the results of the experiment went in the opposite direction to that expected. Indeed, the data show that a message conveyed in a humorous way may be less effective than one presented in a more serious manner. In addition, it seems that variables such as age and perception of the limits of freedom of expression play a significant role in the appreciation and willingness to share this type of material online.
Amnesty International (2017). Amnesty International Rapport 2016/17. La situation des droits humains dans le monde. https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/pol10/4800/2017/fr/
Amossy, R. (2014). Apologie de la polémique. Presses universitaires de France.
Badouard, R. (2020). La régulation des contenus sur Internet à l’heure des “fake news” et des discours de haine. Communications, 106(1), 161–173.
Baider, F. (2019). Le discours de haine dissimulée: le mépris pour humilier. Déviance et Société, 43(3), 359–387.
Baider, F., & M. Constantinou (2019). Discours de haine dissimulée, discours alternatifs et contre-discours. Semen, 47, https://journals.openedition.org/semen/12275.
Begag, A. (2001). L’humour comme distance dans l’espace interculturel, Écarts d’identité, 97, 3–6.
Borau, Sylvie, A. El Akremi, L. Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. Hamdi-Kidar & C. Ranchoux (2015). L’analyse des effets de médiation modérée: Applications en marketing. Recherche & Applications en Marketing, 30(4), 95–138.
Borrelli, D., L. Iandoli, J. E. Ramirez-Marquez & C. Lipizzi (2022). A quantitative and content-based approach for evaluating the impact of counter narratives on affective polarization in online discussions. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 9(3), 914-925.
Boskin, J. (1990). American political humor: Touchables and taboos. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 11(4), 473–482.
Braddock, K. (2015). The utility of narratives for promoting radicalization: The case of the Animal Liberation Front. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 8(1), 38–59.
Brown, A. (2017). What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law and Philosophy 36(4), 419–468.
Calvert, C. (1997). Hate speech and its harms: A communication theory perspective. Journal of Communication, 47(1), 4–19.
Charaudeau, P. (2006). Des catégories pour l’humour? Questions de communication, 10, 19–41.
Charaudeau, P. (2013). De l’ironie à l’absurde et des catégories aux effets. In M. D. Vivero García (Ed.), Frontières de l’humour (pp. 14– 27). L’Harmattan.
Choquette, E. (2022). C’est juste une blague! Vraiment? Quand l’humour et la religion alimentent les stéréotypes. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 55(3), 619–644.
Choquette, E. (2016). L’humour: entre actes politiques et intérêts communs. In J. Dufort & L. Olivier (Eds.), Humour et politique. De la connivence à la désillusion (p. 39–69). Presses de l’Université Laval.
Chovanec, J. (2021), “Re-educating the Roma? You must be joking. . .”: Racism and prejudice in online discussion forums. Discourse & Society, 32(2), 156–174.
Cineas, F. (2021, 9 January). Donald Trump is the accelerant. A comprehensive timeline of Trump encouraging hate groups and political violence. Vox. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech.
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2011). Fighting hate and bigotry on the internet. Policy & Internet, 3(3), 89 –114.
Council of Europe (2017). Alternatives: les contre-récits pour combattre les discours de haine. Council of Europe Bookshop.
Council of Europe (2023). Le discours de haine. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/fr/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech
Cummings, W. (2018). “Alternative facts” to “witch hunt”: A glossary of Trump terms. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/01/16/alternative-facts-witch-hunt-glossary-trump-terms/1029963001/
De Latour A., N. Perger, R. Salaj, C. Tocchi, P. Viejo Otero, C. Del Felice, M. Ettema, & R. Gomes (2017). Contre-récits et récits alternatifs. In C. Del Felice & M. Ettema (Eds.), Alternatives: Les contre-récits pour combattre le discours de haine (pp. 76-89). European Council
Dexter, L. A. (2006). Elite and specialized interviewing. 2nd edition. ECPR.
Ellis, N. T. (2024). “Stand back and stand by”: Rhetoric some call racist has marked Trump’s entire presidency, USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/13/hate-speech-common-theme-trumps-presidency/5873238002/.
Eslen-Ziya, H. (2022). Humour and sarcasm: Expressions of global warming on Twitter. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–8.
ISD (2021). About us, Institute for Strategic Dialogue. https://www.isdglobal.org/about/
Iyengar, S., & D. R. Kinder, (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.
Jérôme, L. (2010). Les rires du rituel: humour, jeux et guérison chez les Atikamekw. Anthropologica, 52(1), 89–101.
Lorenzi Bailly, N., & Claudine Moïse (Eds.) (2021). La haine en discours. Le bord de l’eau.
Marland A., & A. Esselment (2018). Tips and tactics for securing interviews with political elites. In A. Marland & al. (Eds.), Political elites in Canada: Power and influence in instantaneous times (pp. 29–50). UBC Press.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.
Monnier, A., A. Seoane, N. Hubé, & P. Leroux (2021). Discours de haine dans les réseaux socionumériques. Mots. Les langages du politique, 125(1), 9–14.
Mutz, D., & B. Reeves (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.
Ördén, H. (2018). Instilling judgement: Counter-narratives of humour, fact and logic. Critical Studies on Security, 6(1), 15–32.
Poole, E., E. Giraud, & E. de Quincey (2019). Contesting #StopIslam: The dynamics of a counter-narrative against right-wing populism. Open Library of Humanities, 5(1).
Quemener, N. (2017). Mascarade de la diversité. Stéréotypes et feintises dans la série Inside Jamel Comedy Club. Mots. Les langages du politique, 99, 113–126.
Renaut, L., & L. Ascone (2019). Contre-discours au discours de haine djihadiste: de l’expression de la conflictualité à la fabrique du doute. Semen, 47, https://journals.openedition.org/semen/12504.
UNESCO (2020). Une chaire UNESCO lance un cours en ligne pour lutter contre la montée de l’extrémisme violent et du discours de haine. https://www.unesco.org/fr/articles/une-chaire-unesco-lance-un-cours-en-ligne-pour-lutter-contre-la-montee-de-lextremisme-violent-et-du
Vivero García, M. D. (2013). La contestation par l’humour. Étude contrastive de l’humour dans la littérature espagnole et française contemporaine. Cahiers de Narratologie, 25, 1–12.
Weber A. (2009). Manuel sur le discours de haine, Strasbourg, Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, https://rm.coe.int/manuel-sur-le-discours-de-haine-anne-weber-fr/16808e4e21.
Weaver, S. (2011). Jokes, rhetoric and embodied racism: a rhetorical discourse analysis of the logics of racist jokes on the internet. Ethnicities, 1(4), 413–435
