Making Resistance Visible:  The Role of Nonverbal-Symbolic Opposition to Hate Speech Across Cultures

Hate speech in public spaces is usually addressed and regulated as a primarily verbal phenomenon, as are efforts to counter it. Less attention has been paid to how citizens, within protected speech boundaries, oppose hate not only through words but also through visible, symbolic, and multimodal acts—such as wearing inclusive symbols, displaying specific colours, or aligning physically with marginalised groups—and how these responses shape perceptions of harm, tolerance, and democratic norms. This paper examines counterspeech not only as a verbal act but as a symbolic, visual, and multimodal form of civic expression. This experimental study (N = 827) investigates how citizens’ responses to homophobic speech are perceived by third-party observers and how these perceptions influence broader inferences about harm and societal tolerance. Using visual vignettes in Germany and the UK, the research compares three response types: verbal counterspeech, nonverbal-symbolic responses (like wearing inclusive symbols), and mixed responses that combine verbal objection with symbolic cues. By situating these within different socio-normative climates—from silence to majoritarian and unanimous opposition—the study conceptualises hate speech as a social phenomenon whose meaning emerges through interaction rather than isolated utterances. Findings reveal a differentiated pattern with key implications for free-speech debates. Symbolic responses alone did not reliably reduce perceived harm and sometimes heightened perceptions of unresolved tension. In contrast, mixed responses proved especially effective in Germany, reducing perceived harm and increasing perceptions of societal tolerance—particularly where opposition to hate speech was not yet widespread. These effects were weaker in the UK, highlighting how cultural legibility shapes the interpretation of symbolic expression. In both contexts, social consensus alone was insufficient; communicative clarity through multimodal expression was decisive. Theoretically, this study reframes counterspeech as a multimodal, embodied practice that operates within, rather than against, liberal speech democracies. It shows how citizens interpret and enact normative boundaries in daily interaction. Empirically, the findings suggest that visible, symbolic opposition—when combined with verbal engagement—can reinforce democratic resilience and social cohesion by clarifying shared values. The paper contributes to broader discussions on how institutional safeguards and citizen-led responses jointly shape inclusive and just societies.