Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Freedom of Expression and DefamationStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Swedish journalists' perceptions of legal protection against unlawful online harassment

Open access
Björkenfeldt, Oscar·2023·Frontiers in Sociology
DOI 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1154495PMC PMC10149682
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examined journalists' perceptions regarding the legal system's ability to protect them against online harassment. By utilizing open-ended survey responses from respondents with varying levels of trust in the legal system, the findings suggested a need for increased technical proficiency, resources, and priority within the legal system to adequately address the issue. Additionally, a reciprocal relationship between the normalization of online harassment within the journalistic profession and the legal system's commitment to providing protection was identified. However, the study also found that when the legal system's mediated approach to online harassment is positive, it affects attitudes and norms relating to legal protection. Consequently, it reveals a unique insight into how journalists respond to the message conveyed by fair treatment and respect from the legal system. Notably, this result implies that when such messages are internalized, journalists feel more empowered to take measures against online harassment. As a result of this analysis, I propose that current laws should be implemented more effectively and that policy strategies should be developed to positively influence social norms and social control to bolster journalistic autonomy and freedom of speech in the digital age.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1154495

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Adams, 2018, “They go for gender first” the nature and effect of sexist abuse of female technology journalists, Journal. Practice, 12, 850, 10.1080/17512786.2017.1350115 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alkiviadou, 2019, Hate speech on social media networks: Towards a regulatory framework?, Inform. Commun. Technol. Law, 28, 19, 10.1080/13600834.2018.1494417 · DOI
  3. Barlow, 2016, “You need to be sorted out with a knife”: The attempted online silencing of women and people of muslim faith within academia, Soc. Media Soc., 2, 2056305116678896, 10.1177/2056305116678896 · DOI
  4. Bernard, 2016, Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches
  5. Binns, 2017, Fair game? Journalists' experiences of online abuse, J. Appl. Journal. Media Stud., 6, 183, 10.1386/ajms.6.2.183_1 · DOI
  6. Borg, 2012, Write-in comments in employee surveys, Int. J. Manpower, 10.1108/01437721211225453 · DOI
  7. Burnap, 2015, Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making, Pol. Internet, 7, 223, 10.1002/poi3.85 · DOI
  8. Carlson, 2021, Digital press criticism: The symbolic dimensions of Donald Trump's assault on US journalists as the ‘enemy of the people.', Digit. Journal., 9, 737, 10.1080/21670811.2020.1836981 · DOI
  9. Chen, 2018, “You really have to have a thick skin”: A cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists, Journalism, 2018, 1464884918768500, 10.1177/1464884918768500 · DOI
  10. Citron, 2014, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, 10.4159/harvard.9780674735613 · DOI
  11. Dodge, 2019, “Policing cybercrime: Responding to the growing problem and considering future solutions,”, 339, 10.4324/9780429460593-15 · DOI
  12. Ekberg, 2018, Där Bor Journalisterna
  13. Fadnes, 2019, Where Are We Now?–(Almost) a Decade with the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, Conflict & Communication
  14. Ferrier, 2018, TrollBusters: Fighting online harassment of women journalists, Mediating Misogyny: Gender, Technology, and Harassment., 10.1007/978-3-319-72917-6_16 · DOI
  15. Hedman, 2016, When journalists tweet: Disclosure, participatory, and personal transparency, Social Media Soc., 2, 2056305115624528, 10.1177/2056305115624528 · DOI
  16. Hess, 2020, Moral compass: How a small-town newspaper used silence in a hyper-charged controversy, Journalism, 21, 574, 10.1177/1464884919886441 · DOI
  17. Holt, 2019, “Policing cybercrime through law enforcement and industry mechanisms,”, The Oxford Handbook of Cyberpsychology, 645, 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.013.34 · DOI
  18. Holton, 2021, ‘Not their fault, but their problem': Organizational responses to the online harassment of journalists, Journal. Practice, 2021, 1, 10.1080/17512786.2021.1946417 · DOI
  19. Koziarski, 2020, Connecting evidence-based policing and cybercrime, Policing, 2020, 40515372, 10.21428/cb6ab371.40515372 · DOI
  20. Lewis, 2020, Online harassment and its implications for the journalist–Audience relationship, Digit. Journal., 8, 1047, 10.1080/21670811.2020.1811743 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Löfgren Nilsson, 2013, J-Panelen: Hotet Och Hatet Mot Journalister
  22. Löfgren Nilsson, 2017, Journalisternas Trygghetsundersökning. Journalisters Utsatthet under 2016. Arbetsrapport nr 75
  23. Löfgren Nilsson, 2016, Journalism under threat, Journal. Practice, 10, 880, 10.1080/17512786.2016.1164614 · DOI
  24. Meza, 2018, Targets of online hate speech in context. A comparative digital social science analysis of comments on public facebook pages from Romania and Hungary, Intersections-East Eur. J. Soc. Polit., 4, 26, 10.17356/ieejsp.v4i4.503 · DOI
  25. North, 2016, Damaging and daunting: Female journalists' experiences of sexual harassment in the newsroom, Feminist. Media Stud., 16, 495, 10.1080/14680777.2015.1105275 · DOI
  26. Obermaier, 2018, Journalists as targets of hate speech. How German journalists perceive the consequences for themselves and how they cope with it, SCM Stud. Commun. Media, 7, 499, 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499 · DOI
  27. Owen, 1984, Interpretive themes in relational communication. QJS., 70, 274, 10.1080/00335638409383697 · DOI
  28. Penney, 2021, Understanding chilling effects, Minnesota Law Review, 10.2139/ssrn.3855619 · DOI
  29. Poncheri, 2008, A comment on employee surveys: Negativity bias in open-ended responses, Org. Res. Methods, 11, 614, 10.1177/1094428106295504 · DOI
  30. Popping, 2015, Analyzing open-ended questions by means of text analysis procedures, Bullet. Sociolog. Methodol., 128, 23, 10.1177/0759106315597389 · DOI
  31. Posetti, 2021, The Chilling: Global Trends in Online Violence Against Women Journalists.
  32. Sandelowski, 1995, Sample size in qualitative research, Res. Nurs. Health., 18, 179, 10.1002/nur.4770180211 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Scaramuzzino, 2020, Workplace violence a threat to autonomy and professional discretion, Sociologisk Forskning, 57, 249, 10.37062/sf.57.22059 · DOI
  34. Schmid, 2022, How social media users perceive different forms of online hate speech: A qualitative multi-method study, New Media Soc., 2022, 14614448221091184, 10.1177/14614448221091185 · DOI
  35. Sobieraj, 2020, Politicians, social media, and digital publics: Old rights, new terrain, Am. Behav. Sci., 64, 1646, 10.1177/0002764220945357 · DOI
  36. Stahel, 2020, Female journalists under attack? Explaining gender differences in reactions to audiences' attacks, New Media Soc., 22, 1849, 10.1177/1461444819885333 · DOI
  37. Sunshine, 2003, The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing, Law Soc. Rev., 37, 513, 10.1111/1540-5893.3703002 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Tyler, 2013, Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement, 10.4324/9780203782842 · DOI
  39. Waisbord, 2020, Mob censorship: Online harassment of US journalists in times of digital hate and populism, Digit. Journal., 8, 1030, 10.1080/21670811.2020.1818111 · DOI
  40. Yar, 2018, A failure to regulate? The demands and dilemmas of tackling illegal content and behaviour on social media, Int. J. Cybersecur. Intell. Cybercr., 1, 5, 10.52306/01010318RVZE9940 · DOI
  41. Zhou, 2017, Who tends to answer open-ended questions in an e-service survey? The contribution of closed-ended answers, Behav. Inform. Technol., 36, 1274, 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1381165 · DOI
  42. Zuell, 2015, The influence of the answer box size on item nonresponse to open-ended questions in a web survey, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 33, 115, 10.1177/0894439314528091 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Björkenfeldt, O.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Björkenfeldt, Oscar
ORCID
Björkenfeldt, Oscar
Venue
Frontiers in Sociology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-04-17
Volume
8
Pages
1154495-1154495
ISSN
2297-7775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fsoc.2023.1154495
PMC
PMC10149682
OpenAlex
W4366224388
Cited by
6
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
10.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Sociology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
online harassment, journalists, legal protection, trust in the legal system, editorial independence, freedom of expression, digital journalism, social norms, social control, harassment legislation, Swedish journalists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.