BETWEEN CRITICISM AND HATE SPEECH: A FORENSIC LINGUISTIC STUDY OF SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOURSE ON THE MBG PROGRAM

Abstract

This study examines the forms of hate-related discourse toward the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG)
program on social media through a forensic linguistics perspective. As social media increasingly
functions as a space for public discourse, it facilitates the emergence of various responses to
government policies, ranging from constructive criticism to emotionally charged and potentially
harmful expressions. This research adopts a qualitative descriptive method. The data consist of
social media posts, comments, and video-based utterances that indicate negative or hate-related
expressions toward the MBG program. Data were collected through observation, note-taking, and
non-participatory techniques, and analyzed using lexical, semantic, and pragmatic frameworks
within forensic linguistics. The findings indicate that most utterances cannot be strictly categorized
as hate speech targeting specific identities. Instead, they represent evaluative and critical discourse
characterized by sarcasm, exaggeration, and negative labeling. Lexical choices such as “toxic,”
“stale,” and “rotten” demonstrate strong emotional evaluation, while pragmatically functioning as
expressive and persuasive acts that influence public perception. Despite this, such discourse may
still carry legal implications when involving unverified or misleading claims. This study
underscores the importance of forensic linguistic analysis in differentiating between legitimate
criticism, negative discourse, and hate speech within digital communication contexts.