Dogwhistles, Discrimination, Humour and the Law: Regulating Implicit Messaging

This paper explores how implicit, discriminatory messages bypass sanctions in the United Kingdom and beyond, despite their potential for significant societal harm. Drawing on linguistic and humour research, it emphasises the role of humour used to conceal discriminatory expression and evade legal boundaries. The study extends understanding of how courts and, more recently, online platform moderators sometimes struggle to identify discrimination in humour, especially satire and irony. This has raised concerns about potential regulatory overreach as well as the risk that failing to address the issue could normalise hateful expression. Expanding laws to regulate implicit speech is problematic; it risks suppressing legitimate expression and stifling creativity. Nonetheless, implicit expressions used to promote social division or discrimination are equally problematic if left unchallenged. Therefore, tackling this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, combining education about the legal consequences of both offline and online expression, platform policies, and media literacy initiatives. These initiatives should help audiences better interpret implicit messages, complemented by legal literacy to encourage consideration of the legal implications of their speech.