Public Prejudicial Discourse as a Global Socio-Ethnic Phenomenon: Using Digital Media to Limit Detrimental Language Flows

Studies continuously seek answers to how harmful speech delivered by any group or individual to three or more people affects their wellbeing. Specifically, deliverers target specific individuals or groups with their speech often unjustifiably or incorrectly based solely on the individual’s association with a group. Various avenues have been used to disseminate prejudicial data, creating different reactions. Whether verbal antagonism—casual racial slurs or disparaging race-sensitive comments or non-verbal expressions—explicit and implicit images published to denigrate an individual or group, prejudicial narratives have massive socio-economic and cultural consequences. Nevertheless, prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on their membership in a particular social group (Allport, 1954); it is common against an unfamiliar cultural group and behaviors associated with prejudice such as discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, and ageism are now rife in communities worldwide and digital media networks. This paper analyzes some behavioral theories and uses the matrix of self-awareness and its ability to unlock our understanding of communication between groups and enhance group cultures. Referencing the use of prejudicial language in America and the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s efforts to track prejudicial discourse, it suggests steps to limit anti-other behaviors.


Method
Method 1: This paper is loosely guided by a combination of behavioral theories and archetypes propounded by Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Peter Ludwig Berger, which largely explain that conscious and unconscious factors in our personality and behavior identify us and highlight our beliefs.
It is also based on Berger & Luckmann's (1967) psychoanalysis perspective that irrational, unconscious drives and motives, often originating in childhood, underlie human behavior. To refresh our memory, Jung (1981) theorizes that people are motivated by a more general "psychological energy" that pushes them to achieve self-realization, "psychic wholeness," and harmony. For Jung, a person's purpose in life is to have their conscious and unconscious selves become fully integrated to become their 'true self.' Jung's psychology reportedly lacks the necessary scientific basis, making it mystical and based on foundational truth (Cattoi, Ordorisio, & David, 2018, p. 72). Jung's analytical psychology is the premise upon which a clear explanation of manifestations of prejudicial speech should be offered because we are not mind-readers, so we cannot succinctly determine the true intentions of a hate language user. For example, an individual or group can use hateful speech if they have limited knowledge of those being targeted by it or do not care about the psychological, emotional, physical, and economic damages such speech may have on the other.
Method 2: Analysis of the human self per the Johari approach To understand the mindset of prejudicial speech users, the contexts, conditions, or circumstances for the interactions, and the environment that nurtures and fosters prejudicial speech, I refer to an exercise that explains how people can identify their strengths, weaknesses and blind spots. The Johari Window (Luft & Ingham, 1955;Luft, 1969), a communication model used for self-disclosure and understanding how people communicate in a group and convey and accept feedback, shall provide a context to analyze the psyche of prejudicial speech users. For reference, the Johari Window model is based on two principles: that (1) trust can be acquired by revealing information about you to others, and (2) you can learn about yourself from their feedbacks. It is a standard window with four panes; two represent the (known) self, and the other representing what is unknown to self but known to others. It is important to note that information transfers from one pane to the other based on mutual trust achievable through socializing with others and the feedback from members of that group. Factors unknown to others within the context of prejudicial speech delivery include: • a natural skill that a person does not realize they possess • a fear or aversion that a person does not know they are nurturing • repressed or subconscious feeling • conditioned behavior or attitudes developed since childhood • values taught during a child's formative years, especially about their race and other races • negative opinions a person has received about another person from the same race without the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm Communication, Society and Media Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 4 Published by SCHOLINK INC. The open space is that part of our conscious self-our attitudes, behavior, motivation, values, way of life-we are aware of, also known to others. We move within this area with freedom. We are "open books." • Hidden: Our hidden area cannot be known to others unless we disclose it. There is that which we freely keep within ourselves and that we retain out of fear. The degree to which we share ourselves with others (disclosure) is the degree to which we can be known.
• Blind: There are things about ourselves we do not know, but that others can see more clearly, or things we imagine to be true of ourselves for a variety of reasons, but also those others do not see at all. When others say what they see in a supportive, responsible way, and we hear it, we can test the reality of who we are and can improve.
• Unknown: We are more productive and sophisticated than the things we and others know, but often something happens-is felt, read, heard, dreamed -something from our unconscious is revealed. Then we "know" what we have never "known." Source: ttps://primarygoals.com/teams/models/johari-window/ The model is further explained in this form: www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm Communication, Society and Media Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 5 Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Figure 1. Johari Window Model
Source: https://www.selfawareness.org.uk/news/understanding-the-johari-window-model Through the Johari Window matrix, I identify other behaviors that explain how hateful people think, verbalize, and expected outcomes.
That analysis, which is the epicenter of inter-personal, intra-personal communication, and to some extent, public discourse, offers us valuable insights into the mindset of prejudicial speech users and their intended target(s). More importantly, it illuminates our vision of an actual scene in which the user and receiver are together and what transpires during the entire process of communicating hate messaging.

Conclusions
Prejudicial speech is rising globally as networked communities interact and share data among themselves and with external groups. The coziness of interacting with like-minded people has created a new linguistic repertoire and a breathing ground for manifestations of hateful expressions against cultural other (s). Members within a cyber-group invent and share xenophobic words and phrases that ultimately mobilize them to express hate-related thoughts or take evil actions against individuals and socio-cultural-ethnic groups whose lifestyles they do not understand or like. These communities exist within the national territory and online, making it difficult for law enforcement authorities to properly track their operations or diminish their power. While the concern over prejudicial speech has moved www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm  (Petsnik & Varauer, 2020). Although there were no direct effects on behavioral outcomes, their exploratory analyses suggest that observing ostracism of disadvantaged versus dominant group members indirectly impacted behavior proven by increased feelings of anger.
These results indicate that ostracism is probably being a relatable experience. When it occurs across group boundaries, it awakens individuals' sensitivity to injustice and discrimination.

Interpretations of Prejudicial Discourse
Prejudicial speech is understood as verbal and nonverbal language or terms or phrases used directly or indirectly to induce an adverse reaction; it is the language directed to intimidate an out-group or influence the behavior of in-group members. Victims of prejudicial speech may be individuals, businesses, financial institutions, government entities, religious organizations, or society.
Characteristics of prejudicial speech include harsh terms and derogatory language-peaking, writing, singing, acting, yelling on street corners, advertising, threats, slander, burning flags, etc., to express one's disdain for another person's ethnic group. The inferred meaning makes prejudicial speech more potent; in other words, the prejudicial speech user aims to undermine the integrity of the intended receiver. Prejudicial speech does not necessarily involve a threat or a desire to incite a crime; in open societies, it is generally understood as speech that advocates genocide or incites hatred against an identifiable out-group. Speech demeans based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or similar ground.
Another context is that understanding or misunderstanding of another culture can and does influence racist language. To clarify this position, we propose that each culture sees language differently. A word in one cultural group may have a different meaning in another culture; the speaker's familiarity with the listener and exposure to the specific language and amount of education determines how they communicate. Other emotional or psychological factors beyond bias and fear can influence one's expression. Hence, before deciding why a person has used prejudicial speech, we must consider the speaker's socio-ethnic circumstances. Their use of inflammatory speech and violent acts could have come from their limited diction and forms of expression in that particular language.

Sociology of Prejudicial Speech
In general terms, discourse is the crucial qualifier for the economic, social, diplomatic, and cultural advancement of individuals, non-profit organizations, businesses, nations, and relationships simply because words evoke mixed feelings, perspectives, and reactions. We cannot fully understand the sociopolitical impact of prejudicial speech on us if we do not know the characteristics of democratic self-governance and the qualities of a tolerant society. For example, the address is dangerous when it causes physical harm, as exemplified in the US Racial Discrimination Act 1975 § 18C. The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University defines prejudicial speech as vocal communication that demeans or attacks a person or people as members of a group with shared characteristics such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. With this framework, language users can create their semantic meanings from the sounds and lexicon (words) and use them as weapons against a perceived enemy. Culture and language are not analogous; they complement each other in that they include thinking. We think in the language we use, hence thinking and expressing language direct our values/our way of dealing with people and situations.
During communication, offense takes place when three scenarios are present: the receiver is offended when (1) they experience a dislike, and (2) they attribute that state to the wrongful conduct of another source (speaker, spoken or written information delivered), and (3) they resent the other source for their role in causing them to be in that state (Feinberg (1983). Here, decoding speech harm rests in the individual's interpretation of the language used. Any internalized attributes to that language or affective factors such as the user's skin color, education level, social class, or gender are best determined by the receiver's ability to decode the message's message. Meta-ethical questions arise from this context. A salient one being the type of conduct a nation or society should identify to make prejudicial speech criminal without violating citizens' freedom (rights). Other philosophers and sociologists have attempted to answer that question by proposing liberty-reduction principles based on some aspect of the law. Amdur (1985) agrees that more thinkers believe the society (nation) can impose legal penalties to prevent others from speech harm.
Prejudicial speech and free speech have existed concomitantly since homo sapiens occupied the earth and have since been practiced in all countries worldwide. Why? Because, fundamentally, we (humans) are not born prisoners of conscience; instead, we are born free, as ancient Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle posits, expected to express ourselves freely. Free will is a necessary spice in human life; otherwise, no one in any society or nation would be able to communicate a thought or feeling. To reiterate the words of British Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, "a free agent is he that can do as he will, and forbear as he will, and that liberty is the absence of external impediments" (https://iep.utm.edu/freewill). The widely cited German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, brings out the moral angle of one is free will in what he calls the "categorical imperative,"-an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances, rather than being dependent on our inclination or purpose. Connecting Kantian ethics with free will, we arrive at a crossroads where our imperative morality clashes with free expression.
Suppose an 'imperative' is a proposition that declares an action as absolute or unconditional, such as the verbal and non-verbal language used to meet a particular need. In that case, it means that such expressions can and should be defended and recommended within the framework of right and wrong behavior. Free will has always clashed with social order created by regimes and imposed by law enforcement entities (police, gendarmes, military, supervisors, etc.) to bring social justice, peace, and the common good. Each regime creates and practices its social order within its territory, tapping into indigenous customs and values from external forces (more powerful nations).
Thus, free expression can be (and is often) directed by ethnic, religious, institutional, racial, or colonial socio-cultural biases. It follows that prejudicial speech is ingrained in the people's psyche, no matter their geographical location, ethnicity, religion, gender, social standing, or time in history. However, persons willing to learn the dangers of being neutral in a place where prejudicial speech exists may be hard-pressed to know that staying neutral when (one is) in a position to relay information can be chaotic. We are responsible for speaking publicly about political, social, and ethical issues. As Harris, J. (2013), a professor at the University of Manchester, England, has found out, there may be conflicts speaking up for what is right. Nevertheless, continuously staying neutral can cause problems with our morale.

Prejudicial Speech as a Human Phenomenon
Incitement to hatred may permissibly be regulated if we can show that it can harm others by contributing to a climate of hostility leading to discrimination, violence, and injustice against members of certain social groups (Brown, 2008). Prejudicial speech is a form of expression through which speakers or writers strive to humiliate or incite hatred against individuals, a social class, group, or race.
As Asante (2003) puts it, prejudicial speech or offensive language is a characteristic of hierarchical language, a self-perpetuating rite de passage. The creator of offensive speech operates from a perceived hierarchy, which gives them the pedestal from which to offend.
The right to freedom of expression implies that it can be openly debated, scrutinized, and criticized as long as it does not advocate hatred that incites hostility, discrimination, or violence against individuals. Lastly, cultures articulate prejudicial speech differently; for some, it is a way to engaging or motivating people to respect local laws; for others, it creates harm, and it is prosecuted through the national laws that govern the freedom of expression.

Discourse versus Use of Derogatory Language by Ethnic Groups
The media in America can be identified as an essential perpetrator of prejudicial speech among ethnic groups because it provides continued coverage of the activities of known racist and terrorist groups, extending conflicts among them and maintaining the issue on the discussion list of more people. As earlier stated, prejudicial speech takes different forms depending on ethnic orientation, linguistic capability, and social standing. The figure below describes the language used in public settings in America and their intended meaning. While the list is not exhaustive, it offers the caveat that ethnic groups use prejudicial speech to express their feelings. Blacks, Hispanics, Africans vs. whites-"white nationalist" is used synonymously with "white supremacist" and "racist," the latter term delineates an intense hatred of other races by whites. Also, in American communities, there is controversy over the delineation of terms to describe races.
For example, the majority of the American population invariably describes people of African descent as "blacks," "people of color," "African Americans," or "negroes." Greg Carr, Chair of Howard Blumenbach, writing on the Classification of Human Races, describes Europeans as "hopeful," Asiatic as "sad and rigid," American natives as "irascible," Africans as "calm and lazy" without offering any scientific or logical process to classify the races. That most researchers may have seen those adjectives used by the German anthropologist since 1752 lends credence to the alarmingly destructive perception of Asians, a race with 2.7 billion people-(59.54%) of the world's population, and Africans carrying 1.3 billion people-(17.2%) living on the mainland and abroad, it is no wonder that the social science community, heads of state, international corporations, students of history and people in general marginalize and undermine the values and achievements of Asians and Africans.
Nevertheless, the politicization of those terms does not define anyone's true identity. Instead, it advances a false sense of race and class structure in society. To view anyone in terms of their skin color ("black," "white") is something that members of a social group construct-no human being looks white. Since people associate 'white' with light, brightness, purity, etc., and black with darkness, blurred vision, and uncertainty, those who describe descendants of those ethnic compositions in terms of color have essentially constructed their perceptions of such people. Therefore, such a description is faulty and fundamentally designed to sow seeds of discord and racial tensions between the groups.
Prejudicial speech is associated with violence, nationalism, and terrorism. History continues to teach us that, in every society, prejudicial speech has devastating socio-economic and political consequences on its user, its target (the vulnerable), and the community itself. Neurologists and psychiatrists have established that modifiable social and psychological factors contribute to the genesis of a terrorist and violence-prone mood. On a limited scale, prejudicial speech can lower one's self-esteem when someone else uses derogatory terms to describe one's body parts, intellect, religion, community, or race, as stated earlier in this article.

III. Prejudicial discourse and how it influences our perception of others
Speech, by default, is a form of expression; it is an act, a behavior developed and sustained through the perpetrator's prior knowledge of the individual. Prejudicial speech operates as racist speech; it manifests through public paraphernalia displays in audio-visual contexts such as music or physical appearance. Non-verbal aspects of speech include the user's intentions for selecting words and the desired effect of using a particular tone when delivering the words. When creating or conveying the message, the conscious sender considers the intended receiver's linguistic levels and socio-cultural and economic conditions. In short, a wink, nod, any unwarranted verbal or non-verbal communication to another person or party constitutes prejudicial speech. We miss the point when we see prejudicial speech only as the spoken word or written expression. In a way, prejudicial speech is a new form of racism, primarily when a group uses referential or direct means to index identity. offensive language against minorities.
Looking at the figure above, we learn that the regions with relaxed rules on press freedom and nations whose governments believe in a representative democracy and principles of classical liberalism are prone to allowing people to make offensive statements against underrepresented groups in public. It also shows that a sizeable part of the population appears insensitive to abusive language against minorities. Still, we affirm that prejudicial speech is a risky component in the exercise of human rights. It is challenging to implement a global policy against prejudicial speech rhetoric because policymaking requires population input.

IV. Prejudicial speech, human rights, and the United Nations Position
Prejudicial speech is an acceptable form of expression-the bulwark of democracies. Prejudicial speech does not have a legal definition under US law because there is no standard definition for bad ideas, rudeness, sexist language, foul language, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that everyone might condemn. We also examine speech within a physical and psychological framework.
When physical harm or psychological offense is inflicted upon others, four considerations are pertinent: (1) the content of the speech. (2)  To understand how prejudicial speech functions across national borders, we must consider the role of mobility factors such as human migration and indigenous values in human rights in a foreign land.
Each language group assigns its meaning to words so much that a term used in a particular context in a given language necessarily bears the same meaning in another language or ethnic group. Free speech is the lifeblood of every democratic society because it is a right that allows individuals to argue freely for other rights such as fair trials, free elections, or decent living conditions.
Understanding prejudicial speech in international space and how it affects the rights of individuals requires a review of the post-cold war world rhetoric masterminded by Russia and the United States.
The changes in world politics following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 led to revolutionary changes sweeping East and Central Europe ending over 40 years of dictatorial Communist rule that precipitated efforts to promote American legal models to regimes in transition throughout the world. If all humankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, humankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than if he had the power, would be justified in silencing humankind (Mill, 1960, Chapter 2 (Geertz, 1966a(Geertz, , 1973(Geertz, , 1976). Geertz's vision of cultures as systems-associated practices-suggested the existence of some form of uniformity across cultures, languages, and accompanying documents of expression, a trend that raises questions around connotative meaning, social differentiation, social conflict, and associated negotiations and contestations over language itself.
Geertz's stance dangerously persuades us to believe that any member of a language group can manipulate speech or negotiate meaning to suit their circumstances without caring about consequences.
Nevertheless, we must be reminded that free speech, of which prejudicial speech is a component, is not an independent value; it has to be limited, for no human society throughout history has existed without imposing limits to its lifestyle. This is why most liberal democracies, whether they operate as a constitutional monarchy or republic, have limitations on free speech. Moreover, the United Nations (UN), the central intergovernmental organization responsible for maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, and harmonizing actions among countries, also recognizes that speech, if not controlled, can cause havoc between nations.
Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations has monitored xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, anti-Semitism and anti-Islam, and anti-Christianity hatred worldwide. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention strives to protect and prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Prejudicial speech has been a precursor to state atrocity crimes, including the genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia. Cameroon used metaphors to turn people against their neighbors and describe minority groups as less human than the media and political leaders. presented the likelihood that the media, particularly television, influence our thoughts and feelings, subsequent research suggesting that more exposure to violent narratives increases violent behavior.
Since then, the media has become the most conspicuous enabler of prejudicial speech because it is accessible to many information creators and news consumers. Social media has given every user a platform to spew prejudicial speech and radical beliefs to disaffected people, amplifying otherwise weak opinions and making such views viral.
It should be noted that the users' experiences are mediated by algorithms designed to maximize their engagement, inadvertently promoting extreme content. Take the example of YouTube, the most famous tool used by terrorist groups. YouTube is the new global television, with more than 2 billion users, with 80 % of Internet users having their own YouTube account and 95% of the worldwide internet population watching YouTube. Internet watchdog groups say YouTube's auto-play function, in which the player, at the end of one video, tees up a related one, can be especially pernicious (Laub, 2018).
Jack Nica's investigative report published in the Wall Street Journal in February 2018 reveals that the algorithm brings people to videos that promote conspiracy theories or are divisive, false, and misleading. No wonder media platforms, especially sites sponsored by advertisers and companies and teenage forums, are filled with discussions and messages about public policies to address violence and prejudicial speech.
For their part, newspapers, cable news networks, television, and radio talk shows are reputed to promote prejudicial speech globally by focusing on outrageous statements made by world-renowned public figures. As suggested in this chapter, statesmen have used their status and derogatory speeches (as public figures) to get news organizations' attention and, consequently, 'infect' viewers/listeners with their modus operandi. This author has previously stated that international news broadcasters construct their coverage of terrorist operations to instill fear and usher in the sense of urgency among audiences (Ngwainmbi, 2017, pp. 203-204). He has found a link between global terrorism and prejudicial speech.
He further explains how religious extremists use online media platforms to persuade passive audiences, recruit extremists and promote their political beliefs, causing the media and general public to pay attention to their raison d'etre (Ngwainmbi, 2016(Ngwainmbi, , 2019b. The media is also an enabler within countries.
Further studies show media role in fostering hatred and genocidal behavior. Some regimes in fragile democracies have repeatedly used far-reaching carriers like radio to spread propaganda and anti-Semitism. In Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the Weimar government introduced www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm Communication, Society and Media Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 16 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
pro-government political news over radio airwaves, increasing Nazi popularity. Adena et al. (2015) have observed that Nazi radio was most effective in places where anti-Semitism was historically high and negatively affected places with low anti-Semitism. We should be reminded that such radio-enabled propaganda set the tone for the rise of Nazism and galvanized the German army to launch the Second World War. Published documents show how Italian prime minister Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in the 1930s installed the Ente Italiano Edizioni radiophoniche (Italian radiophonic auditions) in public places to obtain people's support. The public service broadcaster served as the government's voice spreading fascist ideologies. Radio was the cheapest form of entertainment and the most popular medium during World War II. It reached many citizens, so accessibility and availability to this medium fueled propaganda during the war and helped extend the fighting between the allied forces and Germany's allies. As social scientists and world-class economists contend, one wonders if the radio's inventor, Italian Guglielmo Marconi, had envisaged its dubious but critical role in changing global politics, economy, and culture.

Conclusions
We consciously or unconsciously utilize prejudicial expressions around strangers and familiar people, no matter the nature of our religious beliefs and cultural values. The derogatory remarks pose various risks; they hurt people's feelings and cause individuals to embrace false ideas or undertake destructive actions. If not monitored, this communication pattern can potentially damage trade agreements and inter-group, inter-ethnic, and diplomatic relations between countries. It is alarming that most countries and provinces have constitutional laws that protect free speech, not prejudicial speech, allowing marginalized persons, including women, children, poor and older people, minorities, LGBTQs, youth, and the unemployed, at the mercy of harmful language that injures their self-esteem.
There is a lack of will to impose heavy penalties against business entities and individuals who use digital platforms to spread prejudicial discourse. Even the United Nations Human Rights Commission continues to play a lame-duck role even though it was mandated to promote and protect human rights worldwide. Established in 1946 "to examine, monitor and publicly report either on human rights situations in specific countries or territories" and weave the international legal fabric that protects fundamental rights and freedoms" (United Nations Humans Rights Council, https://www.ohchr.org), the world governing body has ignored public discourse on the prejudicial treatment of ethnic minorities in Cameroon, for example. Since war broke out in that country's south and northwest regions in 2017 when denizens publicly complained about under-representation in and cultural marginalization by the central government, the Council has not taken any meaningful steps to solve the problem. Instead, more social media platforms are cropping up, and sympathizers and pro-government groups continue to spread prejudicial messages online, leading to more killings, the burning of villages, and the massive www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm Communication, Society and Media Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 17 Published by SCHOLINK INC. exodus of the marginalized population in that region.

Suggestions for Curbing Prejudicial Speech and Promoting Racial Harmony
If we agree that most prejudicial speech users have limited education and exposure to other cultures, they should be schooled on humanity to improve racial relations. We must change racist ideologies such as White supremacy, white nationalism, and inferiority complexes to an inclusive culture. To do so, we must first master self-awareness. Human beings are, by nature, mentally vulnerable, and social contact helps us cope with stress and significant life changes.
6.1 I propose that we collectively suffer the effects of prejudicial speech as a human family, but we do not deserve it. Instead, we need to make collective efforts to limit it in our communities. Just as Jung (1981) explains that we have the 'psychological energy' that pushes us to achieve self-realization, we can consciously utilize this energy to bring common good for everyone.
6.2 Lawmakers and law enforcement teams adopt and implement strategies globally and simultaneously across all platforms without sharing the sensitive information of individual users or commercial secrets. The United Nations Assembly, which meets annually to promote peace initiatives among nations, can significantly promote racial harmony. Every country hosts people with different racial backgrounds.
6.3 If the organization has a comprehensive policy signed by member states, they would likely implement it properly.
6.4 The UN Human Rights Commission should review national customs and study prejudicial speech patterns in each country before producing a comprehensive strategic plan to enable nations that impose restrictions on free expressions with laws tied to national culture and religion.
However, clinical studies show that prejudicial speech can be prohibited without international policies.
Although such prohibitions mean a permissive approach would undermine free speech, complicating a society's ability to progress on peace terms. Since anyone, including racist groups, can post data on the internet, recruit and motivate vulnerable and like-minded people to block websites with content designed to foster racist discourses and activities.
Countries should consider ways of countering prejudicial speech in the media through ethics and self-regulation. A quick way to achieve this is by educating journalists to understand prejudicial speech in their respective languages of expression and raise awareness at all levels. UNESCO blog writer Poni Alice JameKolok (2019) offers five ways to counter prejudicial speech, including the need for the media to raise awareness of individuals and groups' political, social, and cultural rights.
If established electronic and non-electronic media reflect the freedoms and roles of journalists in creating and promoting peaceful societies and educate the masses about prejudicial speech accordingly, the volume of prejudicial speech would decrease worldwide.
However, I recommend the following preliminary steps: 2) Countries should shape prejudicial speech laws based on their own cultures and the universal plan and take action on legally defined cases allowed by international law. They should impose fines on violators and use the funds to train at-risk groups and individuals.
3) In conjunction with IT companies, researchers should develop software that could help regulators and enforcement agencies implement new interventions 4) Other countries should replicate best practices and share them on social media platforms. Here are a few examples of best practices in some countries that countries can replicate: • The Indian government has new social media rules, including ordering platforms to remove posts within twenty-four hours based on offenses and obtain the user's identity.
• In 2018, Germany, in a bid to end the Nazi legacy, made a law requiring large social media platforms to remove posts considered "manifestly illegal" within twenty-four hours. However, as Laub (2019) states, Human Rights Watch raised concerns that the threat of hefty fines would encourage social media platforms to be "overzealous censors.
It might be challenging to block websites, particularly in the US, where free expression is a human right. At the level of professional information and news management, this chapter recommends the following actions: • Regulating social media flows by enhancing press freedom: Press freedom can be improved through media laws and ethics education. • Having the newsroom serves as a prejudicial speech police office. The newsroom should have a program to monitor, compile, and evaluate incidents and trends in crimes engendered by prejudicial speech and bring them to the attention of state authorities.
• Encourage conflict-sensitive reporting and multi-cultural awareness campaigns: Conflict-sensitive reporting would help dispel the "us" against "them" fallacy. Journalists should be taught conflict-sensitive reporting skills. Multi-cultural awareness campaigns should emphasize knowledge about and respect for the diversity of cultures and traditions. Journalists must exercise professional standards, write articles, air programs, and even speak with people without taking sides (JameKolok, 2019).
• Responsible reporting of prejudicial speech-Victims and witnesses should be encouraged to report crimes related to prejudicial speech. Most people do not recognize prejudicial speech or take it seriously because most victims do not know where to report the cases. Some victims do not realize that they are victims of prejudicial speech. Thus, each country should have a hotline connected to the police department that victims of prejudicial speech can dial.
• Public institutions, particularly those operating with available funds, should create stringent rules against racial harassment and copiously implement them. Local and state governments should withhold funding for institutions that break the rules. The institutions should be paying fines for breaking the law.
• Non-academic avenues should be encouraged, such as creating opportunities for demonstration projects and discourse and mediation and counseling provisions for all students.
• Minority student organizations should also be strongly supported, multi-cultural events and forums, and workshops to discuss controversial subjects (Bellacossa, 1993).
• The actions in the next segment should be undertaken to end prejudicial speech among Caucasian-Hispanic, based on the findings of a previous study conducted by this author: i.

Cultural groups from both communities in the US-Caucasian and
Hispanic-should organize events and training where knowledge on the socio-cultural values of each group can be shared.

ii.
Hispanic and American cultural groups should organize more conferences on myths and stereotypes to allow scholars, program managers, and experts on foreign relations and multi-cultural communication to exchange ideas and develop cultural awareness activities in American suburban communities (Ngwainmbi, 2013, p. 376)  prejudicial messages and remove content that threatens to disrupt the lives of vulnerable people in the country and destabilize the political systems of emerging nations. They should work with lawmakers to craft and implement policies using platforms they have created, such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Facebook owners in America have been able to weed out threats. We understand that Online platform business models depend on maximizing, reading, or viewing times. Facebook and similar platforms generate financial profit by enabling advertisers to target audiences with extreme precision (Laub, 2019). Thus, it is in their best interest to attract people to online communities to spend the most time. Social media CEOs should use their moral compass to create a policy manual for hate language and post it online to address this. Violators should have their accounts blocked, and perpetrators were given a fine. Repeat offenders should be arrested, tried in court, and pay a hefty fine or serve time in jail.